>If hackers chose to go after Apache or any open source web servers, they would probably be 10x more vulnerable than IIS. I don't think there are inherantly any more security flaws in IIS than in any other web servers. The editorial seemed to imply this - Gartner simply said that because the extensive hacking is happening to IIS that maybe people should consider moving to other web servers. I don't think they said IIS security is any worse than any other web
server...

That sounds like one response that MS could make.

Gartner said that the other servers have a "better security record". You could choose to read that as meaning that Apache (et al) is targetted less often; however, considering that Apache has over 2x the market share of IIS, one would expect Apache to be targetted MORE often (or is everyone "picking" on MS ?).

http://www.netcraft.com/survey/

Open source means more IQ points; for every hacker, there is some number of folks who will prefer to point out remedies for "potential" vunerabilities which can be fixed before there is a problem. That is why open source servers are and will continue to be more secure.

Open source is about quality; MS is about shipping software.

Sure, apply the patches and you won't have a problem; but you wouldn't need patches if there weren't so many holes ... and the patches are only available once there is an all-out attack.