Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Privacy, Security, Encryption A Computerworld editorial takes note of some interesting changes Dell made to the Linux page we linked to last week. They watered down some of their pro-Linux claims, but not as far as you might think.
Thread beginning with comment 431182
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: From the article ...
by nt_jerkface on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 07:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From the article ..."
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

For example, Google runs a million Linux servers, and Linux runs the London Stock Exchange.

Yet there exists very little malware which targets Linux, despite the high value of many of the target machines.


That says nothing about what value those websites are to malware writers. It's effort/profit that matters to them, not actual server value.

Malware writers are mostly criminals that want to make a few million and cash out. Trying to break into a Google farm or stock exchange is an extremely difficult and risky proposition.

When there are millions of Windows users that download random crap from p2p networks and keep updates off there is no contest when it comes to which target will provide the best effort/profit ratio.

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[5]: From the article ...
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 11:28 in reply to "RE[4]: From the article ..."
RE[6]: From the article ...
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 23:53 in reply to "RE[5]: From the article ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In their day-to-day use of the Internet, ordinary Windows users face at least 10^7 (ten million) times the risk of getting malware than the same users would face if they were running Linux.

This fact is self-evident, it is an absolute no-brainer.

Actual malware infection rates back this up to the hilt.


Why did this get modded down? It is a plain, straightforward, demonstrable fact.

Here is a security firm's estimate of infection rates (it is unstated, but this is basically for Windows PCs):
http://gorumors.com/crunchies/malware-infection-rate-worldwide/

If accurate, that represents literally billions of malware-infected Windows PCs. Billions of times as many infections as any other kind of machine. (Microsoft would put the infection rate much lower, but that just changes it from 'billions' to 'hundreds of millions'). By induction, it is relatively easy to conclude that essentially all of the effort of malware perpetrators is directed at the Windows userbase target.

Regardless of the reasons why this is so, it still is so. It is the fact.

An ordinary user of Windows, demonstrably, clearly, undeniably, faces many orders of magnitude greater risk of getting a malware infection than does the same user running Linux.

Apprently, there are some Windows supporters out there having a very hard time facing this fact.

Apparently also, as perhaps evidenced by the Dell website re-wording, it is a straightforward fact that some parties do not want people to be aware of.

Edited 2010-06-23 23:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2