Re: Time for Linux
I'd say the fly in the ointment here is that precisely because of the history of Windows security issues, there is at least the perception and possibly the reality that the security management infrastructure for it is better developed than it is for Linux. Note that I'm not saying Windows is more secure than Linux, I think the opposite is true although when Windows is properly managed it is now much closer to Linux.
I say this because in my work environment we have a knowledgeable admin who has successfully leveraged Linux on the LAN, but whenever it comes to security issues, he is constantly confronted by a security environment that is Windows-Centric. So he has to prove that his system is as secure and that can be problematic.* Similarly I have heard from a manager in a different office that "security scans are a PITA because they've given us a tool for Windows but it doesn't work on Linux/Unix. So even though those systems are secure, because they can't be tested with the Windows Tool, they get marked unknown which is almost worse than failed."
*I'd say that since he is actively proving the system is secure, it is probably more secure than the Windows systems where simply because the tool says "passed" it is assumed to be secure.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
