Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
Linux and UNIX-like operating systems in general are regarded as being more secure for the common user, in contrast with operating systems that have "Windows" as part of their name. Why is that? When entering a dispute on the subject with a Windows user, the most common argument he tries to feed me is that Windows is more widespread, and therefore, more vulnerable. Apart from amusing myths like "Linux is only for servers" or "does it have a word processor?", the issue of Linux desktop security is still seriously misunderstood.
Permalink for comment 323714
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-12-08
The problem is applications written are designed for a user to run as an 'administrator' in Windows.
The biggest problem is Microsoft is going to have to work with the vendors to write applications to work with all of their functions as a regular user.
I have been using Red Hat since 6.0 Professional version they had back in 1999 or 2000. However it has taken me many of years to really get a good understanding of how a Linux distro actually works. I am still learning new skills on a weekly basis.
The design of a Linux based distro is more secure in the fact you do not run as root. You can modify the sudoers file to allow 'sudo' access however you can set it to require a password.
I do not think Windows will be able to overcome the problems with applications requiring administrator access until they enforce the applications coders to code it correctly.