Reading articles from Computerworld with its constant Microsoft-bashing makes me sigh. Sure, Computerworld reporters are in love with open source, but maybe they should be showing real trends between critical security bugs in W2K and W2K3 and their favourite Linux flavour over the past two years. I believe you will find that the MS trend for critical W2K3 security patches are in decline while Linux security patches don't share this downward trend.
Is Microsoft great at security? Its track record says no. But it is getting better.
Computerworld makes it sound like Linux is immune to [regular] critical security flaws.
A quick Web search says otherwise... There is also the perception (reading Computerworld articles) that Linux is much more feature-rich, scalable and outperforms W2K3 in all areas. Some balanced reporting would be nice. Am I expecting Computerworld articles to say W2K3 is the best product since sliced bread? No way! Healthy constructive criticism will (hopefully) force vendors to deliver better products (open source products included).