Right, Right, IE is horrible compaired to netscape.
In defense of MS$ you know they get picked on a lot.
If the hackers poured an equal effort into destroying debian Linux you would have a "very un-secure" operating system in debian linux.
Time to think up a new argument mate, two reasons: this one is
poor and
old :-)
Every major OS gets just as much attention as MS products do. If you don't believe me, subscribe to bugtraq (a security vulnerability mailing list). There's also NT-Bugtraq for more Windows-specific stuff, though it gets discussed on both lists.
There are more virus writers gunning for MS products, though for two reasons. A) its popularity, but also B) because it's so damn easy. You can run a truck through the security policy of Outlook/Express. If a double filename extension doesn't do it, just add another one on the end, for example. Then there's its MIME handling, there will be a number of vulns after the first along that line, because one subsystem handles the sanity-checking of the MIME type while another handles attachments based on name. B'duh.
Actually, if you wanted to compare vuln for vuln with many Linux distros and Windows, you'll find the figures quite comparable. Windows would be a pretty damn secure OS all round if IE, OE, MSNM, WMP and SMB (filesharing services) were removed on a default setup. They are what makes it such an obvious target, and quite frankly, who needs them. Certainly not everyone. People who don't run these components on Windows as their default apps (or use SMB) only have to worry about one in 10, maybe 15 Windows vulnerabilities.
And instead of using Netscape, use what is currently in development (Netscape has been discontinued), which recent versions of Netscape was based on:
Mozilla,
Mozilla Firefox, and
Mozilla Thunderbird.
