Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
Linux 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 323979
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
OS and applications...
by RHCE07 on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 00:51 UTC
Member since:

The same inherent problem remains with Vista, the
ability for the user to run all applications
they install without admin access or rights.

When I install Amarok in Fedora 9 for instance,
I install the application by using sudo yum install
amarok then I can start the app as my regular user
account without any permissions. I believe Windows
can be very secure only when they require the
coders to write the code correctly maximizing the
new security UAC included in Vista.

With a Linux distro, you can use sudo to perform
system work and the inherent file system and
OS is built for a multi-user environment. Plus,
the networking is more robust, plus with RHEL or
Fedora you can setfacl's on directories, files
and restrict access and SELinux is enabled by
default. I think Windows has a long road to tow
until they enforce application writers to code
for the end user to run the application.

Both operating systems have their weaknesses,
however right now in my opinion the Linux
distro community has a leg up on the core
functionality of security with ease of use.

Reply Score: 1