Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 5th Feb 2006 17:10 UTC
Features, Office One of the biggest reasons for many people to switch to a UNIX desktop, away from Windows, is security. It is fairly common knowledge that UNIX-like systems are more secure than Windows. Whether this is true or not will not be up for debate in this short editorial; I will simply assume UNIX-like systems are more secure, for the sake of argument. However, how much is that increased security really worth for an average home user, when you break it down? According to me, fairly little. Here's why.
Permalink for comment 92922
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: pffft
by Resolution on Sun 5th Feb 2006 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: pffft"
Member since:

No offense, but perhaps you should word your article better. I shouldn't have to keep going over an article to wonder what you are trying to say.

Okay. Your whole argument is that the media (and average Linux users) are distorting the facts about what Linux "really" can do. Where have they said Linux is immune to viruses? Where was it ever stated that users should *never* backup their personal data because Linux should be secure? Where?

I've haven't seen any of that said before, but I have seen it said countless times that <u>data is the single most important thing on a computer</u> and that backups are a necessity if you value that data.

If the pictures of little Johnny get deleted by accident, then that's the fault of the user. If that user is wanting to switch to Linux, then i'm pretty sure they know the importance of backing up files. Furthermore, I think this is more common knowledge nowadays with the epidemic of spyware, viruses, and worms. In other words, there is a difference between knowing that you should backup, and not knowing about the practice of backing up files; the minority being the latter.

Reply Parent Score: 2