Andrew Yeomans, vice-president of global information security at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, says there is not much to gain from counting patches: "For me, the main question is 'Can I keep Microsoft or Open Source secure?' to which the answer is 'Yes' to both, but at present it costs less for Linux than it does for Windows."

Security accounts for a large part of the total cost of ownership of a product, as time-consuming tweaks are often required.

Research from Yankee Group analysts found that 88 per cent of companies said Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 was equal to or better in reliability than Linux.

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

"I'm a bit wary of people who say open source is more secure," says James Govenor, an analyst at Red Monk. "In coding, I think Microsoft is ahead as it is allocating resources to a particular problem."

Governor says that since the release of the update Windows XP service pack 2, Microsoft has tried to change its approach and develop software more securely.

The Yankee Group's report also found that 73 per cent of companies use Windows 2000 or 2003 as server technology, with the rest mostly using some form of Open Source.

Microsoft has long argued that more hackers and virus writers target its operating systems because of its larger market share. But according to Zone-H.org, where hackers document their activity, more people are attacking Linux operating systems for website defacements.

In December 2004, there were 6,101 recorded attacks on the Open Source web server Apache and half that number on Microsoft's IIS. There were also fewer general attacks on Windows (25,527) and BSD (724) than on Linux (27,245).

While the debate rages, companies appear to be mixing and matching the best tools for the job at hand.

"I see both of them working hard to resolve vulnerabilities and they are both fast to get patches out on a regular basis so that it's not disruptive," adds Schmidt. "I don't think either is better – there's a place for both in this world which is why I use both."

And even Laurie, an open source advocate, concedes that Microsoft has improved its security: "On the positive side, they are doing auto updates. It's still closed-source though."

© The Financial Times Ltd 2009. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.

< Prev | 1 | 2