Why Linux Is More Secure Than Windows
Posted 03 August 2010 - 12:39 PM
I find that Ubuntu and other Linux in general actually much easier to use, learn and maintain.
If Linux is too hard for you, stick with Windows and other Apple toys. Let the grow up use real operating system.
Posted 03 August 2010 - 01:34 PM
1 an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something : [as adj. ] a toy car.
In the computer world: cheap, plastic, breaks easily, imitation of a real computer. Synonym: a PC. Antynoym: a Mac.
Posted 03 August 2010 - 02:03 PM
Posted 03 August 2010 - 04:11 PM
While the official definition is as you have stated, I think most people are mis-using the saying, and implying the obscurity is in the fact that Linux and Mac OS aren't as widely used as Windows, and that is why they aren't attacked as often. Judging by the contexts in which I've seen this saying said, I haven't seen anyone use it to describe Windows as being secure because the code is hidden.
Posted 03 August 2010 - 05:33 PM
Posted 03 August 2010 - 08:19 PM
"Windows, users are generally given administrator access by default"
Have you used a newer version of Windows lately? Ever since UAC started with Vista, all users run with their least level privileges. That means even users who are in the administrators group get only regular user access token privileges unless the user explicitly elevates a process which is much like a SUDO operation in Linux. Further information: http://msdn.microsof...y/aa511445.aspx
2. Social Engineering
There appears to be viruses/worms for the Windows platform, I agree with this, however social engineering attacks are platform inspecific.
3. The Monoculture Effect
I think the vast number of Linux distributions actually attribute to its niche status. Look at all of this: http://upload.wikime...roTimeline.png. Who is going to install all of those to see which one fits best? What if developers would take the best things out of some of those and focus on make one killer desktop Linux operating system?
4. Audience Size
Yes more malicious software for the window platform in comparison to Linux. Here is a discussion: http://superuser.com...indows-vs-linux
5. How Many Eyeballs
Bugs? "It’s a limited set of paid developers" You do realize that Microsoft has ~90,000 employees the majority of which are developers who also happen to be some of the brightest in the industry. The reality is that all software ships with bugs. Here are few Red Hat recently: Bug Fix Advisory - RHBA-2010:0562-1 (glibc bug fix update), Bug Fix Advisory - RHBA-2010:0561-1 (selinux-policy bug fix update ), Bug Fix Advisory - RHBA-2010:0560-1 (krb5 bug fix update), Bug Fix Advisory - RHBA-2010:0563-1 (vnc bug fix update). "Not only that, but users can even fix problems themselves" - is this a feature of Linux?
Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:07 AM
Linux is basically for really tech savvy people or those who are too cheap to spend money.
I have had Ubuntu installed on my computer as well as VMWare's virtual machine and I always go back to Windows. Windows looks better and is much easier to use. Especially for a guy like me who likes to try many different types of software, in which Windows has an extreme edge over Linux.
Yes I know Linux has it's built in installer which you can choose from a variety of software in its database to install with ease. But if you want to install software that isn't in the database like a brand new product, you have to be tech savvy to install it. I wanted to installed a beta version of Firefox and it wasn't in the database, I was told I need to type in a command to install it. That is far from user friendly.
So really until Linux becomes user friendly for the average user, it's security means nothing. After all security only matters if your using it, right?
Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:53 AM
Like when your bank account is empty?
"Ever since UAC started with Vista, all users run with their least level privileges. "
Yep. And then most things do not work so people grant themselves admin privs and still run their computers as admins.
Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:16 AM
People who say you must be tech savvy to use linux, only say this as they think of themselves as "experts" in Windows, forgetting the learning curve they went through to get where they are (e.g. @MattPerkins installing a beta version of firefox - it's just not something an average user would want to do - and you don't want a beginner downloading and installing software from random websites, however there's a one-click way of doing it if you know what you're doing). You're posting on a PC World forum: you're not an average user.
To progress to a similar level in linux you must expect to have to progress through another learning curve - it's a different operating system! It's much easier for the average user (who just uses a browser, looks at pictures, or word processing) than you think.
If you don't like how Ubuntu looks, the beauty is that it's easily configurable - you could even make it look like Windows 7!
Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:23 AM
Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:28 AM
The thing that pisses me off about closed source software is not being able to make changes:
In my old work every month the accounts were exported, from the closed source database, into Excel, where they are fiddled with (this took - and still takes - everyone in the team, who each looked after their own projects, a couple of days and much stress), to fit a certain template.
If it was open source the company could pay someone to write the code to simply export it as it's actually needed, saving (I would estimate) 72 working days a month!
The database company won't do it, even though they are being paid - a *lot* - to provide the database.
Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:51 AM
"We have no idea how many bugs are being worked on in Windows" Microsoft has a policy that there can only be X number of known bugs with the operating system before shipping. The last I heard X was 500, and they cannot be major functionality bugs. The bugs are discovered and tracked in Microsoft's public "Connect" website (http://connect.microsoft.com/) during the OS beta and release candidate periods. If you encounter a nasty bug after the system ships, go ahead and submit it at the connect site, you might just get your fix soon enough in a Windows update.
Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:36 AM
Windows didn't really move on in ten years (since Windows 98)!
You've got to take Microsoft's word that that's how many bugs there actually are/ that the ones they publish are the only ones - but why should they be honest?? I don't trust them, and there is no way of knowing.
If you think a "culture shock" to Vista is acceptable, why wouldn't you accept the "culture shock" to Ubuntu? Double standards!
Anyway, people can make up their own minds by giving Ubuntu a try.
Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:57 AM
Im a *nix fan and user (at least at home). Isnt true that *nix doesnt have bugs, nor security problems, and isnt true that *nix its 100% open source and all the ppl can see all the code. Try to get the open source of a RHEL
In conclussion: Dont trust all the things you read on Internet, if u want to know the truth behind, install it
Sorry about the typos, this isnt my mother language.
Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:55 AM
Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:19 AM
Out of the box is actually better with other flavors, such as Mint.
For me the big difference between Windows and Linux are- once you get around the quirks and the workarounds (if any) in Linux you are pretty much done. I do next to nil maintenance (I have 5 home computers to maintain and one at work). When I had Windows it was easy to start (relatively speakings), but the maintenance (both XP and VISTA) were pure nightmare.
I think I recouped the overhead I put in Linux set up in less than 6 months.