Windows Vs Linux Servers

Question

I keep hearing how XP is no good as a server, that it is easily hacked. But what I don't understand is why? If I am running a cisco/linksys router with my firewall up and running XP how could it get hacked (aside from the obvious like, I download a trojan/keylogger or something stupid like that) Are these claims against XP lead only by the "heart" of Linux users and not their brains or am I missing something? Linux would be easier to hack as it allows SSH logins from remote locations I would think.

Answer 1

its the same old story of "camps" one side says this the other that.

I work in IT and we use many Win03 servers and have no problem (I am talking corporate servers not one dodgy PC running as a file server)

The main benefit I see of running linux servers is the cost of ownership, which is far far less then a MS based system.

Now I would say that for a home network u may want to go with linux for it has better stability over winXP when left running for long periods of time.

Linux is going to give you less trouble in the maintenance as well as there are far less critical updates needed and far less administration required.

Answer 2

Linux belongs to the community since it's opensource so many admins love it only for this reason, meaning they know how and what to install on Linux, they can even build their own flavour from ground-up, depending on their experience.

It's the type of people that don't want the others working for them and offering something that they cannot control and use to their own benefit. All Microsoft products enter this area and of course this doesn't mean there is something wrong with them, just that you don't have the freedom to do what you want with it, even if you bought the license.

Windows is no more secure then Linux is, if the user knows how to handle it.