The Register just ran an article on a report [PDF format] that examines some of the Windows vs Linux myths in response to the Forester report that Microsoft claims shows Windows is more secure than Linux. It's an interesting read for anyone interested in the relative securities between Windows and Linux. It's not another parroting of the arguments for and against, it actually analyzes the data available. The myths debunked are:

• There's Safety In Small Numbers [Linux is a smaller target, blah blah blah]
• Open Source is Inherently Dangerous [Access to the source, blah blah blah]
• Conclusions Based on Single Metrics ["There are more security alerts for Linux than for Windows, and therefore Linux is less secure than Windows", "The average time that elapses between discovery of a flaw and when a patch for that flaw is released is greater for Linux than it is for Windows, and therefore Linux is less secure than Windows."]

I only read certain parts of it but the parts i did read were quite interesting. That's all I really have to say considering that I don't have a whole lot against either (Not really a windows fan but I still use it).

It's also nice not being forced to send all my HW info to some company to "activate" linux.

linux?