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 323732
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

At the end of the day, software companies will take leadership from the operating system vendor; if the operating system vendor isn't interested in making their own software use the new API's or update their software to the new security model - why should other vendors go through all the hoops?


Please don't encourage other vendors to take their lead from the OS vendor in this instance, particularly in respsect of security.

This particular OS vendor has a back-door into the OS such that it can be changed ("updated" is the euphemism they use) regardless of the settings or wishes of the owners of the machine on which it is running.

This OS vendor also makes an add-on after thought scanner product in the hopes of detecting breaches after they have already got in, but the scanner provided by the vendor is amongst the worst products available.

Reply Parent Score: 5

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Please don't encourage other vendors to take their lead from the OS vendor in this instance, particularly in respsect of security.


As I said, when Microsoft can't be bothered getting Office 2003 running flawlessly on Windows Vista by releasing an update - why should any other vendor do the same? Why spend the extra money when the operating system vendor and the largest office suite vendor can't be bothered putting in the extra investment?

They way the operating system conducts itself demonstrates how much confidence (or there lack of) they have in their own operating system. If they don't use the features in their new operating system, its telling the software ecosystem, "we have no confidence in our new operating system".

Yes, security is important, but like I said, when Microsoft can't even get their own software using the security features within the operating system - what does that tell the rest of the marketplace?

This particular OS vendor has a back-door into the OS such that it can be changed ("updated" is the euphemism they use) regardless of the settings or wishes of the owners of the machine on which it is running.

This OS vendor also makes an add-on after thought scanner product in the hopes of detecting breaches after they have already got in, but the scanner provided by the vendor is amongst the worst products available.


True, but it is the old story of appearing to do something rather than actually doing something - and when the excrement hits the fan - the blame game is of greater interest than addressing the short comings of their products.

Edited 2008-07-20 08:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3