Modularity, a UNIX system can be more readily stripped down, what isn't present can't be used against it.
I read ahead until the end of this thread before responding so I know BlakeyRat already proved you know shit about Windows. But he forgot to mention that you should really look into Windows 2008 Server Cores. From MSDN
Why would a stripped down Unix file server be anymore secure than a Windows Server Core with the "File Services" role?
Part of my overall point was UNIX had those long ago, those are things that have become part of its image. It's good Windows Server is finally improving
, but that doesn't change the fact that Windows has historically had a very shitty security model
, and backwards compatability will fuck anything new they throw on for a while. On top of that Windows Server is rarely the latest and greatest and I have no guarantee that I'd even be using Windows Server 2008 machines should I end up somewhere having to deal with WS. (I've worked with large companies, they've have Windows Servers as old as NT, and the bulk of them were 9 years old)
And stop using cmd.exe for crying out loud. Everything is done by PowerShell nowadays. Maybe should start comparing Windows 7 with the Classic Mac. Classic Mac really sucks!
So a 4 year old technology would be on every single Windows Server box I would expect to be using? "Ancient "servers exist (read: older than 4 years), they occasionally need to be dealt with. Contrast the *NIX shell, ksh/bash are mature, robust and available on pretty much any *NIX server you'd deal with. The original question was "what's so secure about *NIX?", the things I listed are all things that have been with *NIX for years, and are embedded into the _reputation_ of that familly of OSen. What reputation
does Windows Server have? The most positive thing I can think of is it works great with Windows desktops in terms of functionality, which is unrelated to security.
Also, I didn't speak of Windows until the original reply to my post.