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 323764
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Wrong assumptions...
by ichi on Sun 20th Jul 2008 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong assumptions..."
Member since:

Sure, and you could just tell the user to type rm -rf /home/`whoami` on the console himself, or better yet tell him to pick a hammer and smash his box to pieces.

The point of linux security is not protecting the user from his ignorance, but protecting the system and all the other users from whatever that user might do.
You have every right to delete your /home directory, so the system won't stop you when doing so, no matter if you do it yourself or someone tricks you to run some malicious script.

Reply Parent Score: 4