Not true at all. In fact, from experience, the Linux OS is much more full of holes than Windows. It appears most hate Microsoft so thier OS gets the most virus and hackers. All I can say is we independently did a test with Linux and Windows we isntalled a default OS and put it on the net without a firewall. Windows was never hacked, but Linux was hacked in a day and they took root access to the point where we could not get back in.
That is one of the most insignificant tests. Typically the "holes" are going to depend on what applications and services you have installed on the operating system. For Linux, the default installs have almost no exposed services. The same is mostly true of using XP SP2. And there are many many counter examples to your data point anyway. The logic is the same as saying that some airline hasn't had a crash yet this year therefore it must be safer than the other ones.
But it does raise a good point for SQLite. SQLite is not
exposed as a service in *any* way. It is just a library.
You cannot hack into it over the network. You can hack into an application using SQLite, but you can do the same for
an application using SQL Server, or anything else. SQLite
buys you one less point of exposure. (The same is true of
any other embedded database.)
What SQLite and other open source/free projects give you is freedom of choice. You can get support from whomever you want. You can get maintenance from whomever you want. There is no lockin. So if you want to pay lots of money for 30 minute response times, you can. If you want to pay almost no money for one month response times, you can. If you don't like how long whomever you choose to pay, you can drop them and pick someone else. With Microsoft, you get only what they offer with no choice. You get to go where they want to go today. And try to get a customisation out of Microsoft ...
How about proper research on how long it takes to get systems hacked:
http://www.honeynet.org/papers/trends/life-linux.pdf http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/01/linux_security_1.html
And some counter-FUD:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/ http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,66022,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19649.html http://www.securitypipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26805728 http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/0503/feat-linux3-05-03-04.asp
Roger
