http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1961947,00.asp?kc=ewnws051506dtx1k0000599

over at eWeek.  It is a comparison of different operating systems and how they are approaching trusted computing issues.  Within the context of the article, it is about making sure an application is only doing what it is allowed to do (part of the effort to improve security).  The article looked at Solaris, Red Hat, and SuSE operating systems.  I'm not familiar with Solaris, so can't say much about it.  For Red Hat they were looking at the SE Linux framework and for SuSE it was something else (can't recall the acronym) that they control through the AppArmor application.

Near the end the covered MS a bit, noting that they are concentrating on the desktop.  At Y! SCOX I commented that MS servers were apparently SOL.

walterbyrd replied and indicated others might think the Linux desktop is SOL since Linux focuses on the server.  He then pointed to this article from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114727136610348924-Et3a0yO82d_xJdMWN_y8xKXLl7c_20060521.html? mod=blogs

Alas, the Y! posting server is unreachable for me at the moment, so I have to respond here.  I wanted walter to realize that my comment about MS servers being SOL was within the context of the article I referenced - trusted computing and enhanced security.  As far as I know, the same security options available on the Linux platforms are there for either server or desktop systems.  As the article noted though, it appears MS'es efforts are only tied to securing the desktop better and not the server.

As for the WSJ article, what can I say?  Yet another article from someone who has decided that because a particular OS does not do what they want it to do, that makes it unacceptable for most other users.  I'm debating whether I even want to bother putting together a response.