Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Oct 2009 12:45 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 389874
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.
RE: Actually, I'll amend my statement.
by drcoldfoot on Sun 18th Oct 2009 01:03
in reply to "Actually, I'll amend my statement."
RE[2]: Actually, I'll amend my statement.
by gustl on Mon 19th Oct 2009 10:07
in reply to "RE: Actually, I'll amend my statement."
The question is, "Do you trust any outside entity with the privacy of Your data?"
The question is: Do you trust your Programmer/Packager/Distributor chain?
You have to be able to trust EVERY person who has power to potentially install a backdoor in your system.
Linux distros have central repositories, here I have to make up my mind once if I trust the people behind this repository, and then I can use the whole lot of software residing within.
On Windows you install software from many different places, and every once in a while you get a malware package instead of decent software. That seems to be one of the many reasons why Windows is much more malware plagued than Linux. Other reasons are market share, stronger administrator separation in Linux and centralized, faster security updates (updates peripheral software too, not just the core system).






Member since:
2006-07-04
Because when Windows Update runs each month, it runs the MSR (Malicious Software Removal) applet that searches for and cleans out malware in the most obvious places (i.e. a quick scan, not a full blown scan), and that sends statistics to Microsoft, even without the user joining SpyNet.
Really, it's only the privacy policy that prevents any software from reading data and sending it to the developer of that software over the internet (uless a firewall is disallowing it).