I was giving examples that Linux is more ubiquitous than Windows, since it almost literally runs on anything.
[...]
I am confused by how you are using "ubiquitous" here.
Linux can be much easier to use than Windows (and far less frustrating in my experience), it just depends which distro you use.
So I use the term somewhat loosely but more or less to describe the fact the Windows can be easily implemented in any environment (personal/business/gov environment).
I don't agree that Linux can be (at this point) easily adapted for the typical home user. As soon as they turn it on and they need to install flash, the thing is going out the window. I actually like Linux much more than I like Windows, but the reality of today's current market share and OS advancement is simply that Windows provides more support, for more products and Linux still has a little ways to go to get to the same level of ease. However, coming back to the security thing, the level of ease provided in Windows is a large part of the vulnerabilities found in the OS. Going back to the 'overly complex' comment, Windows suffers from supporting too much. Why doesn't OSX crash nearly as much as Windows? Because it has zero backwards compatibility, it is written for a specific hardware subset so they can strip out a lot of processes that are potentially fatal to the running environment. The more simple a program is, the more stable is can become.
I heard that but I just did a search and turned up nothing.
The Xbox runs on a proprietary Microsoft OS.
The Xbox One will run on a version of Windows 8 (yay! (sarcasm))
Isn't there an inherent advantage to the Unix architecture though?
There absolutely is. UNIX, while containing some minor flaws, is great from a security standpoint. The OS' code and features provide only what is needed and is very lightweight. Typically, security breaches come from add-ons to the UNIX framework (e.g. HPUX). Over the years, the UNIX framework has been improved to close many of the holes without necessarily changing the core framework. However, when the three following OS' were developed (Linux, Windows, MacOS), they added features, functionality and support that opened new ways of compromising the OS. Compromising an OS is more or less exposing the flaws in the programming to allow elevated privileges. Sometimes it's as easy as one command (early days of cacls in Windows) that didn't take into consideration the potential for security breaches. In the security field, we are absolutely on the defense, because holes are being found much quicker than we're able to find and prevent incidents.
How has Windows adapted from an OS designed for private use to one used over the internet?
Poorly, but I'm not entirely sure that it was completely avoidable (when considered in context). Windows XP was the first OS that had a serious implementation with networking in mind. It was written specifically for government environments and was then later adapted for public use. The major problem with XP was the lack of imagination when it came to local rights. They designed the Windows Environment from a networking perspective, but left gaping holes in the local permissions. Since their networking safeguards were overly complex and easily overcome early on, it was rather simple to attain console access to the local environment, and from there, well you could do just about anything.
In your intro, you mentioned that you have some programming background. You understand every programmers nightmare then of fixing one bug and creating three more. The Windows OS is far too complex to quickly patch each hole that is found and often takes rewrites of entire method chains to accomplish something seemingly very simple.
In conclusion, and to your point about not trying to start a flame war, I'm not blind to the serious flaws that Windows contains, nor do I try to discount those and claim Windows as the OS War winner. I realize that Linux and even OSX are far superior to the Windows environment on many levels. However, that doesn't mean that Windows is entirely useless, because that's simply not true. If Linux supported all the programs I use on a daily basis, I would not hesitate to make the jump, but it simply doesn't. It would be nice for Microsoft to get knocked off their high horse and lose some market share. Until that day though, I'm stuck with Windows. I get that many people hate Windows, I'm not a huge fan either, but just trying to introduce some objectivity into the "Windows sucks!" argument. Sure, there's plenty wrong with it, but there's plenty 'right' about it too.
