Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 5th Feb 2006 17:10 UTC
Features, Office One of the biggest reasons for many people to switch to a UNIX desktop, away from Windows, is security. It is fairly common knowledge that UNIX-like systems are more secure than Windows. Whether this is true or not will not be up for debate in this short editorial; I will simply assume UNIX-like systems are more secure, for the sake of argument. However, how much is that increased security really worth for an average home user, when you break it down? According to me, fairly little. Here's why.
Thread beginning with comment 92883
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pffft
by Resolution on Sun 5th Feb 2006 17:40 UTC
Resolution
Member since:
2005-11-14

I can see this will turn into a flamebait article, which was probably the intention...

Of course, they should make backups-- but wasn't Linux supposed to be secure?

Don't confuse security with user clumsiness.

Isn't Linux immune to viruses and what not? Isn't that what the Linux world has been telling them?

No one said Linux was immune to viruses. Linux just won't allow a virus to propagate efficiently due to the way it handles permissions, which makes it much better at containing the damage that a virus can cause than say Windows. This fact also applies to Mac OS X.

Your system is only as secure as the person who maintains it. Just because a person loses personal data through their own fault, doesn't mean the blame should be placed on Linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE: pffft
by binarycrusader on Sun 5th Feb 2006 17:46 in reply to "pffft"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

I can see this will turn into a flamebait article, which was probably the intention...

I don't believe that for a moment and it was rather rude of you to wildly speculate such. I think Thom is just trying to point out that the media and "fantatics" of the UNIX and UNIX Like communities tend to overdramatize their favourite operating system as some "impenetrable fortress" that their data will always be safe within. I can't agree with his assertions that there is little difference in data safety between those operating systems, however I can agree with the basic premise that users shouldn't rely on an operating system's security alone to protect their data.

Your system is only as secure as the person who maintains it. Just because a person loses personal data through their own fault, doesn't mean the blame should be placed on Linux.

I think you've missed Thom's point; that users shouldn't rely on "word of mouth reputation" of an operating systems to protect their data. While I think he could have spun it a bit more positively, the basic premise at heart is alright.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: pffft
by Resolution on Sun 5th Feb 2006 17:59 in reply to "RE: pffft"
Resolution Member since:
2005-11-14

I don't believe that for a moment and it was rather rude of you to wildly speculate such. I think Thom is just trying to point out that the media and "fantatics" of the UNIX and UNIX Like communities tend to overdramatize their favourite operating system as some "impenetrable fortress" that their data will always be safe within. I can't agree with his assertions that there is little difference in data safety between those operating systems, however I can agree with the basic premise that users shouldn't rely on an operating system's security alone to protect their data.

Maybe "flamebait" was too harsh a word for sensitive eyes. I would like to change it to "argumentative discussion".

I think you've missed Thom's point; that users shouldn't rely on "word of mouth reputation" of an operating systems to protect their data. While I think he could have spun it a bit more positively, the basic premise at heart is alright.

Yeah. I know what I read, and my point was not to disagree with the "word of mouth" aspect, but to dispute the notion that Linux is somehow at fault for user clumsiness.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: pffft
by Celerate on Sun 5th Feb 2006 18:20 in reply to "RE: pffft"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree with this, it's common to find people saying "I'm safe because I run [Mac|Linux|BSD]" every time there is a new piece of malware out there for Windows. I have little regard for people who portray themselves as experts and claim that the security holes are simply a matter of which OS is more popular, but at the same time it's undeniable that if a user doesn't know better (s)he could harm a computer no matter which OS it's running if instructed how.

Believing that there's nothing out there that can harm Linux, Mac or BSD is naive. After all a dumb user could just as easily believe an e-mail telling them that applying a magnet to the hard drive will make the computer run faster, and that could affect any OS. It always seems to come down to one thing and that's the IQ of the users.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: pffft
by Lumbergh on Sun 5th Feb 2006 20:35 in reply to "pffft"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Your system is only as secure as the person who maintains it. Just because a person loses personal data through their own fault, doesn't mean the blame should be placed on Linux.

He didn't place the blame on linux. In fact, he didn't say anything about Linux. If you were able to comprehend what he was saying, then you would know he was talking about a false sense of security.

Reply Parent Score: 1