Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
Linux 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.
Thread beginning with comment 323723
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Let's not kid ourselves
by orestes on Sun 20th Jul 2008 06:07 UTC
Member since:

Sure, *nix OSes tend not to be attacked by viruses as much as their Windows counterparts, be it through better default configurations, lower numbers of installs, or outright malware writer disinterest... that doesn't mean they aren't actively targetted by other threats. A misconfigured *nix box can become a spam shovelling, DDoS launching zombie just as fast, if not faster than a Windows machine and I'd dare to venture an inexperienced user would have an even harder time noticing it'd happened before it was too late.

Reply Score: 2