|
|
Post by deadguydrew on Nov 17, 2009 21:39:41 GMT -5
Linux has security through obscurity (and will continue to have this for the reasonable future), but security wise it is actually inferior to Windows, and Mac.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Nov 17, 2009 22:08:40 GMT -5
That is incredibly not true.
|
|
jon
Junior Member
Palm Pilot
Posts: 169
|
Post by jon on Nov 20, 2009 7:38:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by deadguydrew on Nov 20, 2009 8:33:00 GMT -5
Actually it is true. All computer systems have vulnerabilities, Linux, Mac, and of course Windows. However the Linux user base is typically more aware of the inner workings of their computers, and savvy browsing techniques. This coupled with the fact that most virus writers aren't bothering to write for something only marginally above a 1% market share provides security all its own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Nov 20, 2009 11:55:18 GMT -5
|
|
Draco
Rogue
Anaheim Electronics Employee
Anaheim Hitman
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by Draco on Nov 20, 2009 14:51:29 GMT -5
Linux is better because it lets you feel superior to other people without actually accomplishing anything.
|
|
jon
Junior Member
Palm Pilot
Posts: 169
|
Post by jon on Nov 20, 2009 17:07:25 GMT -5
Also, quotes from Ubuntu Forums staff: I actually agree with the overall point that Linux is more secure than Windows. But quoting Ubuntu Forums staff is not a good way to prove that. BTW, Steve Ballmer claims Windows is more secure. Who you gonna believe NOWWWWWWWWW? Edit: Further, when I was searching I found a bunch of stuff saying that about 70% of the market share in SERVERS is in Linux, and one of the primary reasons for this is they are harder to hack than Windows. Also, cite please? According to eWeek in '07, Linux has about a 20% market share in servers, 30% if you include Unix: www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Linux-Losing-Market-Share-to-Windows-Server/(Note: I know the link says "Linux Losing Market Share" - but my search was Server Market Share: www.google.com/search?q=server%20market%20share ; it's the 7th link; the 6TH link is a Linux World article that claims Linux was GAINING market share in 2007... But only claims 12.7% of the total server market to be Linux, which is even worse for your point - I gave you the benefit of the doubt) |
|
|
|
Post by deadguydrew on Nov 20, 2009 23:00:33 GMT -5
First of all quoting Linux admins is as useful as me quoting Windows employees, so I'll just throw that one out summarily. Secondly in response to your posting the The Register article, I riposte with Seattle Times: seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002182315_security17.htmlIn regards to your comments about Windows vs. Linux market share here is Reuters claiming otherwise: in.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idINIndia-32190720080228However to be fair market share does not belay superiority of operating system, but rather of marketing. Otherwise Linux would be thoroughly fucked. Also you have stated nothing that disproves my statement that Linux's security is primarily from obscurity. The fact is that if Ubuntu had a 90% market share there would be more scams, malware, etc, targeted exclusively at it for the simple fact that designing a virus for the most common system gives you the biggest "bang" for your buck. To support this I cite a New York Times article talking about how Mac virus behaviour is becoming more sophisticated based on its rising market share: gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/mac-security-iii-the-rise-of-the-botnets/...and a BBC article: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8096822.stm. There are many more articles about the same topic, but I didn't feel like weeding through which are reputable, and which aren't. Edit: Also at this step I'm going to call a truce. The fact is that Linux is more secure. The point of my discussing this is to demonstrate that much of Linux's security is from obscurity. Mac users have always claimed that Mac is a more secure system, but with more, and more, attention focused on it there are growing vulnerabilities. The only computer system that is totally secure is a cinder block. |
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Nov 21, 2009 0:21:17 GMT -5
I don't think the Seattle Times study is a very fair comparison, considering it is A - old, B - only used one distro of Linux, and C - used base configuration settings. Linux in its base configuration has no firewall.
The content of my articles is much more down-to-earth and provides simple examples of viruses that effect every day people. The facts are pretty clear from that standpoint.
In Windows, you can get a virus that can erase your entire system by simply opening an email.
In Linux, you would have to open the email, download an attachment, run the attachment, and then enter your user password, and even then it would only be able to access your personal files and would not be able to harm your system files.
These sort of security protocols, coupled with the fact that there are so many distros and, yes, obscurity, make Linux much more secure.
I'm not saying obscurity isn't a big advantage. What I am saying is that it is more secure despite that.
|
|
|
|
Post by latooni on Nov 21, 2009 0:27:11 GMT -5
Reason 12: It runs all the best games!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Nov 21, 2009 0:33:32 GMT -5
Reason 12: It runs all the best games! |
|
|
|
Post by Anastasia on Nov 21, 2009 15:22:35 GMT -5
Aww... Latooni, you troll. You hit him where it hurts most.
|
|
