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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-12-05
It sounds like you're just trying to flop the article's meaning around and take its points from the exact opposite point of view that they were meant to be taken. Yay... what fun.
That said, the article wasn't that great compared to some I've read on the topic, I admit--but seriously, quit trying to take it out of context. The article was about security--NOT your own problems with lack of commercial software. Keep using Windows if you need that software, who cares, but the entire point of the article was clearly security. Don't know where you pulled a commercial software argument from, but I would guess you're sitting on it right now.
Anyway, here's an article I like on the subject. Much more in-depth and interesting.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_li...
Member since:2005-07-06
Article which is pointed by that article is heavily outdated and part of those information were approximate.
Plus, statistics are heavily outdated, expecially when considering that in 2004 Windows2003 was about 1 year old.
That's not a very good (and updated) source of information.
Member since:2005-07-06
If the articles points are that easy to reverse, then maybe that's a good indication that the original article was nothing more than an exercise in presenting widely-known facts with a particular spin?
What warranted that assumption? The OP makes no statement indicating that he considers the situation to be *his* problem, or even *a* problem in general.
Member since:2008-06-25
"It sounds like you're just trying to flop the article's meaning around and take its points from the exact opposite point of view that they were meant to be taken. Yay... what fun."
Just pointing out that some of the things that [this article claims...] makes Linux more secure make it less useful on the desktop - which is where virii are more likely to be found (because most require some user interaction). Less useful OS suffers from less virii - hold the front page...
"The article was about security--NOT your own problems with lack of commercial software."
Not a problem for me - not sure where you pulled that argument...
"Keep using Windows if you need that software"
I use Mac OS X at home and Windows XP at work - if it's any of your businesss. :-)
"but the entire point of the article was clearly security."
And as I said, not a point I thought it made very well. The arguments it used to can actually arguably be called *problems* with the platform, not security advantages. I wish the article *had* been about security.
Member since:2007-02-27
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2008-06-25
The only actual information in that article is:
* Linux users less likely to run as root (hardly news...)
* Linux users are more technically savvy and less likely to fall for social engineering - hardly a genuine reason.
* Linux apps are delivered as source (because Linux is used so much less so less commercial desktop apps are developed on it)
* There are a variety of different distributions and architects - making it harder to write viruses and coincidentally harder to develop commercial software targeting Linux
I'm sure there are much *better* technical reasons why the Linux OS is more secure, and I would like to read about them. Unfortunately they aren't in this article.