5 ms·

If Linux had the market share that Windows did, you can bet your last dollar Linux would be as bad off in terms of spyware, virii, etc.

by jawngee 17y ago

cryptoz 17y ago
This is absolutely not true. Such a statement is ridiculous, and ignores the historical development of Linux and Windows. Windows was built as a single-user, administrator-by-default system that will run any EXE file without question. Linux was built modelled on UNIX standards: run as unprivileged user, multi-user environments, etc. Sure, MS is better about Windows Security now. And guess what? That's why there aren't nearly as many virus problems as there used to be (think 7's early days vs XP's early days). Linux has a strong security model. It already has ~50% market share on servers (maybe more)! Don't ever suggest that my last dollar would be spent poorly if I bet on Linux's security. Also, the plural of "virus" is "viruses", not "virii".
- ThomPete 17y ago
  This seems to be emotion talking not logic. You are confusing whether the system with the users. The reason why virus is a menace on the windows platform is because of all the non experts using it. If you had the same kind of types as my partents there would be absolutely no challenge plastering the os with viruses.
Daishiman 17y ago
Bullshit. Historically Apache has always had a greater market share than IIS yet far more virueses target IIS. Historically most servers have run UNIX OSes yet most of the malware that targets servers goes for Windows. Some architectures are objectively more secure. Being closed, in fact, closely correlates with being insecure.
xcombinator 17y ago
If you bet on it, you will lose. That is the MS PR statement, witch is completely BS. Open source have a lot more people looking at the code and using a proven Unix security model.

5 ms·

If Linux had the market share that Windows did, you can bet your last dollar Linux would be as bad off in terms of spyware, virii, etc.

by jawngee 17y ago

If Linux had the market share that Windows did, you can bet your last dollar Linux would be as bad off in terms of spyware, virii, etc.

cryptoz 17y ago
This is absolutely not true. Such a statement is ridiculous, and ignores the historical development of Linux and Windows. Windows was built as a single-user, administrator-by-default system that will run any EXE file without question. Linux was built modelled on UNIX standards: run as unprivileged user, multi-user environments, etc. Sure, MS is better about Windows Security now. And guess what? That's why there aren't nearly as many virus problems as there used to be (think 7's early days vs XP's early days). Linux has a strong security model. It already has ~50% market share on servers (maybe more)! Don't ever suggest that my last dollar would be spent poorly if I bet on Linux's security. Also, the plural of "virus" is "viruses", not "virii".
- ThomPete 17y ago
  This seems to be emotion talking not logic. You are confusing whether the system with the users. The reason why virus is a menace on the windows platform is because of all the non experts using it. If you had the same kind of types as my partents there would be absolutely no challenge plastering the os with viruses.
Daishiman 17y ago
Bullshit. Historically Apache has always had a greater market share than IIS yet far more virueses target IIS. Historically most servers have run UNIX OSes yet most of the malware that targets servers goes for Windows. Some architectures are objectively more secure. Being closed, in fact, closely correlates with being insecure.
xcombinator 17y ago
If you bet on it, you will lose. That is the MS PR statement, witch is completely BS. Open source have a lot more people looking at the code and using a proven Unix security model.