Re: Windows 2003 Server security vs Red hat Linux
From: Karl Levinson [x y], mvp (levinson_k_at_despammed.com)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: Tim Holman \(MVP - Security\): "Re: fake microsoft popups"
- Previous message: Tim Holman \(MVP - Security\): "Re: messenger"
- In reply to: Jeff Cochran: "Re: Windows 2003 Server security vs Red hat Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:39:08 -0700
"Jeff Cochran" wrote:
> You get the idea. If you pitch Windows as the best solution across
> the board and they're hammering security, it's easier to come out
> ahead. Secuirty is rarely the deciding factor in platform choice.
Agreed. Using Gartner reports may not be the best idea, as searching Google
shows you plenty of Gartner statements recommending against use of Microsoft,
IIS, etc.
www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+linux+time+patch+vulnerability+gartner
Decisions of Windows versus Linux for OS is better decided based on what
your current support staff knows, and what your technology needs are. A
Windows system secured by someone who knows how to do it is more secure than
a Linux system secured by someone who doesn't, and vice versa. Both OSes can
be very secure or wildly insecure, depending on the admin and management
tools.
If you have applications that require Windows integrated authentication, MS
SQL, OWA for email, .ASP, etc., going to Linux may not be the best choice.
If you decide that your users and support staff would have trouble migrating
to using Linux for workstations, then you may also find that there are
advantages to keeping the servers on Windows as well, such as a single vendor
to blame when things go wrong.
- Next message: Tim Holman \(MVP - Security\): "Re: fake microsoft popups"
- Previous message: Tim Holman \(MVP - Security\): "Re: messenger"
- In reply to: Jeff Cochran: "Re: Windows 2003 Server security vs Red hat Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
