It always amazes me how bigoted and hateful Windows-haters can be. If you’ve read my recent post about the comment I left on Ed Bott’s blog, you’ll no doubt find that I was very level-headed and open-minded. I was very reasonable about my approach (I think), and willing to accept any proof to the contrary. Nowhere did I explicitly refuse to accept that Windows may in fact have more native security vulnerabilities, nor did I do the opposite, insisting that it most certainly did not have more native vulnerabilities. My exact quote? “I have never seen any hard proof that there are in fact any more / less bugs in one operating system versus another.” That means that everything is subjective, because there is no empirical data present to support either arguement. How then, did I get this reaction? (Notice in particular the areas I have bolded.)

“As for Praveen’s comment about Windows bugs: I have never seen any hard proof that there are in fact any more / less bugs in one operating system versus another. … If we actually ratioed everthing out and did our math, we may well find that Linux / Mac OS X / Your Toaster has exactly the same ratio of bugs as Windows in relation to its scale of adoption / publicity.”

Wishful thinking by the Windows apologists. Just look at security exploits for the Apache web server vs. Microsoft’s IIS — despite being deployed in greater number, Apache *still* has fewer holes than IIS does.

The simple truth is that the development of Windows is driven first and foremost by Microsoft’s business goals, and security is an afterthought. If opening a security hole makes it easier to track your web-surfing patterns (making it easier to gather demographic data and sell you more ads), or makes it easier for Microsoft to check what software you have on your PC (gotta watch for piracy!), then it’s TFB for you. Such practices wouldn’t work with Linux, since the open-source nature means these flaws get spotted quickly and squashed. They also don’t work with MacOS X because Apple isn’t led by a bunch of opportunistic dipsticks.

But keep repeating the mantra about “Windows gets more flaws because it’s popular” if it helps you sleep at night. Everyone should have a favorite fairy tale or two to cherish.

His point about IIS vs. Apache is somewhat relevent. Of course one could also claim that it’s because Apache is generally more complex to setup and is therefore run by more knowledgeable people than its Windows counterpart. I’m not saying I personally believe that, I’m simply trying to point out counterpoints that may open someone’s eyes and get them to stop blindly hating Windows because it’s Windows and manufactured by Microsoft…

I guess it is true what they say: It’s lonely at the top…

Got a response? Post it in the comments here.