Hello there sir,
 I was reading this article from you "Linux security if a 'myth' "
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1160853
 Let me get somethings cleared out first:

Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel:
  Are you accountable for security of the Windows systems? If yes then what does your EULA say? "Any damage to the data is not ur responsibility" Now what kind of accountability is that?
 You can retire an OS @ your will, what does the customer have to do? If he wants the service packs or bug fixes - upgrade. Hmm tell me something - something  that is as simple as a bug fix in the current version of the os will be available for the customer ONLY if he upgrades? Bugs are supposed to be fixed/patched - not put aside for the next version of the OS/suite that I have to buy.
 What about Windows 2000? Are you not retiring it?
 I can understand that you cannot support a version of the OS forever. Definitely - you have to do business. This just means that you cannot attack the "accountability" part of the linux (kernel). Btw take a look @ the number of bugs that you can find on the linux (kernel).

If you look at the number of people who contribute to the kernel tree, you see that a significant amount of the work is just done by a handful:
 Now now now, sir, with all due respect, there is a parito principle. Get it right. Second thing, the handful that you are talking about also exist in any sw company. Just that we cannot look @ the structure in Microsoft while we can look @ it in other places like the linux (kernel) development.
 Most important - there is an army of people who do the testing. Testing that is open.

There are very few of the improvements that come through the wider community. There are more skilled developers writing for the Microsoft platform than for open source:
 I would like you to elaborate that. Its interesting how you can say that any figures? Actually even I would like to know that.

there is no single development environment for Linux as there is for Microsoft:
 I agree.

Let me give you some more interesting facts regarding the Microsoft compilers (single IDE):
 No compliance to the standards. Now that is VERY important you know. Code that was written in the VC++6 does not really fit into VC++7.1 Even that I have been facing a lot of problems while coding. Ever heard of the complaints that people give on templates eh? Did you ever try to release a patch for that? Or did you only release a new version of the compiler. I do accept that when it comes to a single IDE, Visual Studio wins. However VC++7.1 sux. I have had a HUGE number of problems trying to get the IDE working. VC++6 was the last good thing for the Visual Studio.

I think it would be better if you start working on the licenses and then the theme before you can attack GNU/Linux. SP2 is already broken. The Anti Spyware software, sux - it broke Direct Sound on the two computers I tried it.

If Linux security is a myth, Windows security does not exist.

http://students.iiit.net/~cyrax