Username or EmailPassword
Looks like they reworded the article to champion the merits of using Ubuntu, whereas before the article was a biased comparison of Ubuntu against Windows. For example, the chart which previously compared Ubuntu applications to their Windows counterparts now only focuses on Ubuntu, and removes the faulty claim that OpenOffice.org is not available for Windows. In fact, the only mention of Windows at all is in the introductory paragraph, which explains what an operating system does.
I don't see this as bullying from Microsoft. If anything, the updated article is more streamlined due to its reduced scope (the merits of Ubuntu as opposed to an unrealistic comparison of Windows to Linux).
Whoever wrote that first version was a doofus. Not only was it inaccurate, what company would post an open letter criticizing 95% of their own product line?
Clearly it was someone who frequently posts on this site. ;-)
Why would they post that Linux is safer than Windows? Because it is. We need to face the truth, and the truth is that Linux is safer than Windows, period.
"In fact, the only mention of Windows at all is in the introductory paragraph, which explains what an operating system does. "
When Windows became an Operating System? Syllable is more OS than Windows.
The article was spot on. Windows Desktop line is not multiuser. Unix/Linux is multiuser by design. You can loggin as differnet simultaneous users, each running their own desktops, run apps,scripts, scheduled jobs, etc.
Whatever the case, the reality remains the same. Windows has always been, and still is, the low hanging fruit--ever since it took over DOS' market share. And it has traditionally been poorly designed, just like its pathetic predecessor. Coincidence? Not saying that Linux or any other OS for that matter is perfect, but if I were to be browsing porn, you could be damn well sure I'd be doing it on any mainstream OS *besides* Windows.
It's like wearing a rubber... the viruses may possibly be there, but you're less likely to "send" or "receive" them and become infected. Windows at one point offered the protection of nothing at all, but now I'd say it offers the protection of a cheap, generic type of condom. Meanwhile, Linux and BSD have proven themselves over and over, while Windows' nuts and bolts (heh heh) were finally tightened to a more acceptable level with Vista. Edited 2010-06-23 03:45 UTC
differences you are not accounting for:
- Linux needs a lot less external, untrusted, binary-only software.
- AppArmor and SeLinux are ready. Should desktop security become a problem we would see a hell of an isolation layer.
- Differences in kernels, compilers, libraries, etc, would make it much harder for malware to spread.
- Linux users are much more skilled
Yes, if linux had 80% of the user base, there would be more security problems. Probably a tenth of what Windows has right now.
On the other hand, Linux has source code backwards compatibility going a lot further than windows... Applications written for early unix systems can often compile and run successfully on a modern linux box.
Most linux malware is in the form of backdoored services that are intended to be manually installed and used by a hacker, whereas windows malware is typically automated because few hackers would manually target windows machines - their only value is in large hordes for ddos/spam purposes.
It's pretty clear that Microsoft has a firm grip on Dell. Why else would Dell retract their statement? Is it a crime to tell the truth? Linux IS more secure than Windows, that's just a fact. Windows fanboys will claim otherwise, but let's just look at the facts. I have used Windows and Linux for over 13 years in all environments. I've been extremely careful with Windows and have been hit with viruses before. I've seen restricted users get viruses from just browsing websites. I've migrated to Linux (Fedora) as of 2 years ago, and I'll never look back.
The problem is, this statement came too late. There would be absolutely no denying it if this were still the XP era. The problem is, Microsoft really did clamp down on the security starting with Vista, so such statements are harder to be proven. The first Windows version worthy of replacing XP (Windows 7) is out, so it's a few years late. I will still trust an OS with a long reputation for being relatively safe and well-built, over an OS originally conceived as a toy by a bully monopolistic company, who always places their users' security well below their bottom line in terms of importance. But other OSes no longer have such a noticeable, distinct security advantage compared to the latest versions of Windows.
It's sad how long a piece of software holding a monopoly on the market can go being so insecure, before the company finally gets off their asses and does something about it. Too blinded by $$$ and afraid to hurt their stock prices and piss off their stock holders, apparently.