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 92902
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: pffft
by Resolution on Sun 5th Feb 2006 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: pffft"
Resolution
Member since:
2005-11-14

Did anyone ever claim UNIX/Linux is at fault? Nope.

Yes. The author did. Did you even read the article? He says, and I quote: "Of course, they should make backups-- but wasn't Linux supposed to be secure?".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: pffft
by sappyvcv on Sun 5th Feb 2006 18:14 in reply to "RE[4]: pffft"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Sigh.

He's not trying to say Linux is at fault for -- and these are your words -- "user clumliness", but rather the media/proponents giving users a false sense of security.

And no, it's not the same thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: pffft
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 5th Feb 2006 18:16 in reply to "RE[4]: pffft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes. The author did. Did you even read the article? He says, and I quote: "Of course, they should make backups-- but wasn't Linux supposed to be secure?".

Do NOT rip my words out of context.

"But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or a bunch of system files? I can answer that question for you: the pictures of little Johnny's first day of school mean a whole lot more to a user than the system files that keep the system running. Of course, they should make backups-- but wasn't Linux supposed to be secure? So why should they backup? Isn't Linux immune to viruses and what not? Isn't that what the Linux world has been telling them?"

Those lines are from the perspective of the hypothetical user, my friend. NOT from the authors perspective. It's called a style element.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: pffft
by Resolution on Sun 5th Feb 2006 18:38 in reply to "RE[5]: pffft"
Resolution Member since:
2005-11-14

No offense, but perhaps you should word your article better. I shouldn't have to keep going over an article to wonder what you are trying to say.

Okay. Your whole argument is that the media (and average Linux users) are distorting the facts about what Linux "really" can do. Where have they said Linux is immune to viruses? Where was it ever stated that users should *never* backup their personal data because Linux should be secure? Where?

I've haven't seen any of that said before, but I have seen it said countless times that <u>data is the single most important thing on a computer</u> and that backups are a necessity if you value that data.

If the pictures of little Johnny get deleted by accident, then that's the fault of the user. If that user is wanting to switch to Linux, then i'm pretty sure they know the importance of backing up files. Furthermore, I think this is more common knowledge nowadays with the epidemic of spyware, viruses, and worms. In other words, there is a difference between knowing that you should backup, and not knowing about the practice of backing up files; the minority being the latter.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: pffft
by FooBarWidget on Sun 5th Feb 2006 19:14 in reply to "RE[5]: pffft"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

Its written in an inflammatory tone. Its easy to read "look! the linux zealots are spreading LIES!!! LINUX SUCKS!!!" in your article. I'm not at all surprised that people find your article offsensive. Are you?

Its all about the tone.

Reply Parent Score: 1