Come now guys, this is just like being at work. I hate to say it but you all have valid points are are also missing the point in many ways. Comparing Windows, Linux and Unix is completely pointless as they all have their strengths and weeknesses and so are suited for different tasks. Its also impossible to say which is more secure as they each have different structures (No, Linux and Unix are not the same) and, depending on what you include in the statement, some can appear more secure than the other. For example, if you take Linux for what it is (a kernel) and compare it to the Windows kernel then Linux has had far more patches and updates to it however, if you compare Windows and a Linux distro then Windows has more security issues as its not an open system, bundles many applications from Microsoft and is stuck with its current IPC systems.
I've been working with all three systems for over ten years now and have put some HUGE systems in for multi nationals using some or all of them. Whats better? Whats cheaper? Whats more stable? Its impossible to say without knowing the circumstances in which they will be used. I've seen NT servers which have uptimes of four years, planned projects where Linux has worked out many times more expensive than Windows or Unix, seen "insecure" systems take hours to hack and "secure" systems fall over after the first attack. At the end of they day I can say one thing if for sure; IT systems will always have flaws and so I will always have a job.
