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 323740
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
windows vs linux security
by hussam on Sun 20th Jul 2008 10:18 UTC
Member since:

I know nothing about Vista because the last time I saw windows was in 2004 and it was XP.
So I can only compare XP to Linux.
With Linux, you are fully productive if you ran as a limited users. With XP, you are very handicapped if you ran as a limited user. At least back in 2004, a lot of applications for windows still weren't 'multi user' and thus required administrator privileges to function properly.

Even if more people ran Linux than windows, Linux users will still install only applications from trusted sources such as their distributions. Windows users will always download and install anything they can get their hands on from the Internet whether it is something they need or not.

How is the situation now with Vista? Any good news? Is it better?

One of the issues with virus infections was that I used to get a lot of infected documents from friends and co workers but McAfee used to detect those. Now with Linux, I still scan incoming document files with clamav ;)

Edited 2008-07-20 10:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2