"amateur" study that MS was more secure were actually funded by MS. They now claim innocence but the original story used sentences like "A Linux Latest News about Linux enthusiast at the RSA Conference in San Francisco has reluctantly concluded..." and "The pair said that they lacked the funding to test other operating
systems..." which doesn't help their claim any. It all made the "test" sound like an honest (although amateur) contest.
How much funding do you need to buy/borrow/rent a PowerBook and watch it for 30 days? Hell, you could have built a Plan 9 box out of junk and watched it for 30 days
(for free). Heck, QNX's trial period IS thirty days. How about
FreeBSD? Or OpenBSD? Or Windows 3.1? Or FreeDOS? Or RxDOS? Or Beos?
Does Sun still give away trial versions of Solaris?
How much money
was the grant? If it was more than the $20 that one of the
testers pocketed, I'd lean towards using the phrase "<a title="You'll
have to use a search engine for this one">sock puppet".
avoid getting into that argument (and at the risk of irking both
"churches"), either of those OSs can be a floating turd if it's not