> Well... I agree that Windows is seriously flawed, but I'm not saying that
> Linux flaws are any less serious... The only difference might be that Linux
> flaws are usually patched before they cause any serious harm... and Windows
> flaws are usually patched after they have cause many dollars in damages...
> proactive vs reactive...

I don't think either OS is flawed. Each is good in its own way. Windows 
was designed as a gui OS, user-friendly, with a limited tunability. As 
such, it does not have the systems 'under the hood', which are required 
to face an ever-changing hostile networking and programming (system 
programming and hardware development f.ex.) environment. All attempts to 
patch the holes have failed so far because they are patches. Linux and 
*nix systems have a solid networking, security (as in permissions) and 
timesharing system on which a GUI just so happens to be available. 
Sometimes it is slower than the Windows GUI on the same hardware for 
this reason. But the solid things 'under the hood' make it survive 
better and be more configurable in the hostile internet environment. And 
it makes it a much better server platform choice imho. Apple probably 
knew this well when they opted to build OS X on top of *bsd unix. The 
internet was essentially born and is being carried on *nix machines. 
Windows will always be an outsider struggling to cope on it imho.

Peter
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist