Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:22 UTC, submitted by irbis
Window Managers "Linux has proven amazingly flexible: after nearly 10 years of use, I'm still impressed by how the Linux operating system does exactly what I want on any type of hardware. Desktop customization is no exception; from the ultra-modern KDE and GNOME window managers to with the likes of Fluxbox and AfterStep, there's a Linux desktop to suit everyone."
Thread beginning with comment 285668
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

If Linux itself is a virus- and threat-free environment, then why there are so many security patches and updates for any supported distribution ?


Were you dropped on your head as a baby? I would think the answer to be obvious. Linux is secure because there are constant patches and updates for it. Security is an ongoing struggle, in case you didn't know.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:43 in reply to "RE[5]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?


Bullying when ran out of arguments ?

I would think the answer to be obvious.


I have mine too - Linux is secure (or unsecure) as every other OS. Its lack of desktop userbase gives false sense of security to overconfident people like you. See the steadily growing number of exploits in OS X and compare it with steadily growing number of OS X boxes being connected to the Internet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 04:09 in reply to "RE[6]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I have mine too - Linux is secure (or unsecure) as every other OS. Its lack of desktop userbase gives false sense of security to overconfident people like you. See the steadily growing number of exploits in OS X and compare it with steadily growing number of OS X boxes being connected to the Internet.


There are a few things wrong with this thinking, IMO.

Firstly, OSX and Windows both have a large layer of "inscrutable" software. Because it is not able to be seen by large numbers of programmers, it necessarily has limited testing and limited code review. This alone would place OSX and Microsoft both in a different case to Linux, where the whole of the codebase is visible to, and testable by, a huge number of people.

The other aspect of this stems from the same fact: "the whole of the Linux codebase is visible to a huge number of people" ... this includes being visible to blackhats. The other factor to consider in conjunction with this is the kudos that would be associated with writing the first successful mass virus to infect Linux systems. You would think that if there are any exploitable vulnerabilities in Linux, then blackhats seeking kudos would have a go at it, despite the low numbers of Linux desktops.

Another point, Linux has low numbers on the desktops ... but Linux has a significant share of the server market. The servers are where many of the goodies are actually stored, so the "low numbers of Linux machines" is not really a valid arguement at all. Linux still represents a tempting and sizeable target despite low numbers of Linux desktops.

Finally, Linux is not a monoculture. This is especially true when you look at Linux compared with Windows or even with OSX. What might work on one Linux machine won't necessarily work on another. This would put a serious dent into any virus propogation vector on Linux.

So, taking these points into account, and considering the "coolnes factor" that would be gained by any blackhat making a successful attack on Linux, not to mention the fact that a lot of people would like to see Linux fail, one would think that if Linux were indeed as insecure as Windows then by now it would be just as buried in malware as Windows is.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 17:18 in reply to "RE[6]: wm for a server?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Oh? I haven't seen any "growing number of OS X" exploits. Not successful ones, anyway.

There is no relation between the popularity of a piece of software and its security status. Even if it is targeted more, it does not mean it will be vulnerable. Some software products are more secure than others. Constant improvements and sane design are what makes it so.

You seem to be under the false impression that computer security has anything to do with the amount of attacks or how much of a target a computer or software is. That only goes to prove that you don't know much about security and shouldn't speak.

Popularity and attack amounts are completely irrelevant. They are just equivalents of brute force. If the target was well designed and has no vulnerabilities, it makes no difference if it is attacked 10 times or a billion times. It may suffer denial of service, but it will not be compromised.

Windows has fundamental design flaws, security wise. Any amount of fixes will just be patchwork. To make it worse, the fixes come slowly and innovation takes years and years to make its way to radically improved Windows versions.

Compare with Linux and UNIX which are based on much saner design choices and where fixes often come within 24 hours.

Which do you think is more secure?

Reply Parent Score: 2