Of course, "safe" depends on the person.

Generally, Windows systema are much more prone to virus and malicous code attacks.

However, Linux/Unix systems can be very open and easy to break into in the wrong hands.

So, I don't think the question is very fair. The question is too abstract and overly simple.

It is not really possible to vote without bias.

In these types of polls, it is better to much more specific.

^^^ What he said.
I'm with the Penny Arcade guys on this, I tend to switch off without really meaning to when someone starts replacing S's with $'s in Microsoft - no offence Texasone, I'm not implying your point isn't valid, it's just a thing I have about OS-wars. MS still kicks unix to the curb for file and print IMO. Each has it's own niche and should be given equal consideration when deciding the best platform for a given job.

Yes, I agree that we are not here to bash Microsoft or anyone.

Microsoft has a right to their business model just as Slackware or RedHat or HP has a right to theirs.

I use XP on my laptop and Linux for servers. I also use OS X as a desktop. I like them all for different reasons.

Of course, I do feel safer on Linux, but in the final analysis, it is really up to the person in charge of the box to install the right patches and keep the configuration secure.

Actually, I considered deleting this thread when it was first posted, as we are not going to be a bashing site for religious wars.

If the world was full of robots, humans would argue which is better, smarter, faster, more beautiful or handsome, as well as fight about why your robot is black and mine is white or yellow. Humans thrive on conflict. OK, that is natural.

On this site, we aim to keep the conflict to a bare minimum as much as possible, rise above the bias and anger, and just help each other.

Plus, rule violators will be severely punished

You don't have an option to vote for "None of the above."

To a certain extent, they are all vulnerable.

Windows systems may be most vulnerable, but for that very reason, they tend to have anti-virus installed more often, which leaves the remainder on a level playing field.

Chalk up another vote for "None of the above", and/or "It depends". For the scenario Texasone is describing, Windows is probably more vulnerable, but "statistically less prone" is not exactly the same thing as "safe".

Depends. My personal experience (previous company)- 70+ BSD servers, all production ones, running FreeBSD and NetBSD - haven't had any single issue, presumably because we know how and what to configure.
Else, I've seen farm of dedicated servers with Win 2003 server installed - they caught some kind of virus, I don't know which, so we had to clean registry values and some other strange and unknown to me stuff until that moment.