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 323831
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Regardless of the reason
by nberardi on Mon 21st Jul 2008 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Regardless of the reason"
nberardi
Member since:
2005-07-10

I see a platform which was very insecure und vulnerable for over 10 years. It was outstanding in that regards. And _apart_ from that it was also the market dominating one. You can say this is history, but things didn't change as much as you might think. For example recently a worm spread which infects WMA files -- simple audio files! And it makes WMP to download itself. This is the same lesson MS did not learn a 1000 times before.


Yes but why did hackers pick Microsoft technologies over the vulnerabilities in iTunes. Because it was a business decision by them.

Reply Parent Score: 2