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 431216
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Microsoft's hands on Dell's throat
by apexwm on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 13:02 UTC
Member since:

It's pretty clear that Microsoft has a firm grip on Dell. Why else would Dell retract their statement? Is it a crime to tell the truth? Linux IS more secure than Windows, that's just a fact. Windows fanboys will claim otherwise, but let's just look at the facts. I have used Windows and Linux for over 13 years in all environments. I've been extremely careful with Windows and have been hit with viruses before. I've seen restricted users get viruses from just browsing websites. I've migrated to Linux (Fedora) as of 2 years ago, and I'll never look back.

Reply Score: -1

UltraZelda64 Member since:

The problem is, this statement came too late. There would be absolutely no denying it if this were still the XP era. The problem is, Microsoft really did clamp down on the security starting with Vista, so such statements are harder to be proven. The first Windows version worthy of replacing XP (Windows 7) is out, so it's a few years late. I will still trust an OS with a long reputation for being relatively safe and well-built, over an OS originally conceived as a toy by a bully monopolistic company, who always places their users' security well below their bottom line in terms of importance. But other OSes no longer have such a noticeable, distinct security advantage compared to the latest versions of Windows.

It's sad how long a piece of software holding a monopoly on the market can go being so insecure, before the company finally gets off their asses and does something about it. Too blinded by $$$ and afraid to hurt their stock prices and piss off their stock holders, apparently.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:

But other OSes no longer have such a noticeable, distinct security advantage compared to the latest versions of Windows.

This is not true, for the following reasons:

1. Windows has indeed made great improvements in security over what it once was, but so too have vast improvements been made in the sophistication of the threats against Windows.

2. There has been virtually zero energy, inventiveness, resourcefullness etc of malware authors directed at targets other than Windows. Windows always has been, and is still, the prime target.

3. Other systems have likewise improved security over time.

4. Windows strives hard to maintain binary backwards compatibility. This means that virtually all of the malware payloads ever written will still run on recent versions of Windows. The only bit that has been made in any way slightly more difficult is getting the malware payload installed. Ubiquitous Windows applications such as Flash and Acrobat are now being targetted as well as the core Windows OS to get around this problem.

Although the core Windows OS is indeed a bit more hardened in Windows 7 than it was prior to Vista, there has been only a partial reduction in the risks faced by ordinary users running Windows.

The malware "industry" is effectively dependent on Windows, in a kind of parasitic way. It has evolved with Windows. Like most parasites, it has almost no carry-over to other "host species".

Edited 2010-06-24 00:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2