Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Privacy, Security, Encryption A Computerworld editorial takes note of some interesting changes Dell made to the Linux page we linked to last week. They watered down some of their pro-Linux claims, but not as far as you might think.
Permalink for comment 431157
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: From the article ...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 03:08 UTC in reply to "From the article ..."
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

The problem with this logic is that the person running the server is a lot less likely to be on some random P2P network, downloading all kinds of pr0n and warez onto the machine running the server.

You see, it's a lot easier to attack someone who is actively running your malware on a machine with no anti-virus or spyware protection, without any prodding on your part.

And even if they were...? Linux still has far fewer pieces of malware written for it than Windows ever did. Windows even had a nice little boost in the early days thanks to its compatibility with another horrible OS, MS-DOS.

Linux has no "binary backwards compatibility" or "legacy poor-security garbage design" to stick to. At least, not nearly to the extent Microsoft products do. And it has no real, market-driven (commercial) reason to.

Edited 2010-06-23 03:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2