Well, yeah, but I still wouldn't be throwing away GNU/Linux just yet on
that front. I would argue that it's still entirely possible to build a
GNU/Linux system that is more secure than a MS Windows system,
relatively speaking. (Note: I am not saying that GNU/Linux doesn't have
its share of security issues and I am not saying that one can't create a
well-secured Windows server.)
I can understand that this is drifting off track, but as part of the
community, how can you relaibly justify this? I don't mean to be
facetious, but I have never seen any such justification in existence,
furthermore if other aspects are considered such as average required
development time to a 'secure' system the argument can be easily
swung. Such a comment may have been more acceptable if one were to
use openbsd as an example, arguably. Again there are aspects which
must be considered, but if we are refering to the operating system
alone then should we consider the default install, the number of
discrete settings which must be changed? the length of a script which
performs these actions automatically? such judgements are hardly
quantifiable - due to scalar issues.
Remember, if the choice was clear, someone would have 'won' already.