Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
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 323989
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-06
These are fairly irrelevant differences, though, because the basic idea is that someone can install native code which runs in both Firefox and IE. It really doesn't matter whether that code runs from the Firefox plugin directory or from some random place on the hard drive. Maybe it makes you "feel better" to think that the code is somehow sandboxed in the plug-in directory, but it can do just as much (and more) damage as any ActiveX control. I know that people find plug-ins/controls useful; however, the only really secure approach is to turn them off completely. Which will (understandably) break some usage scenarios. But those kinds of tradeoffs are the price for better security.