Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Permalink for comment 431185
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-05-13
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.