4 ms·

Hmm, arguing GNU/Linux is better than Windows on security is passé. Torvalds too often dismisses security bugs.

by alecco 16y ago

hristov 16y ago
It is true in my experience. I have been running Ubuntu for years and have had no problems. I did have issues when running Windows without an AV and firewall, and when I started running it with an AV and firewall, I also had some issues caused by the AV and firewall. Anyways, the actual statement that Dell made (i.e., that there are much fewer viruses and exploits that get written for Linux than for Windows) is obviously true.
bstar 16y ago
Any os that has a software repository(with sources) is going to be inherently more secure. If novice users only get their software from APT then they will be eliminating a whole slew of exploits that could infect their computer. In this regard, Ubuntu is lightyears more secure than Windows.
- lukesandberg 16y ago
  well, you should say, any os with a _responsibly_ _managed_ software repository ...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
naner 16y ago
He doesn't dismiss security bugs, he avoids publicizing security fixes. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The article stated that Linux on the desktop is less frequently a target than Windows. This is objectively true.
r0s 16y ago
Not an expert on windows security, but the traditional answer is the fundamental user handling in Unix solves a lot of problems. I admit ignorance to the validity of the claim, a detailed comparison would be appreciated.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Zak 16y ago
  Please forgive any errors here: Windows has never been my primary OS. Windows NT has had users and permissions providing similar functionality to what Unix offers for a very long time[0]. NT ACLs have actually been more sophisticated than standard Unix permissions for at least ten years. The problem on Windows is the defaults and the behavior of third-party developers. Windows developers worked for a long time with the expectation that the system was single-user (Win9x) or that the user had administrator privileges, making doing anything else annoying at best. XP defaulted to making everybody an administrator, at least in the home edition. That has changed with Vista and Win7. [0] I think some versions targeted at home users do not expose the full ACL functionality.
  - drivebyacct 16y ago
    Have you ever tried to use Windows as a limited user? It's a nightmare. It's "supported" but I can't imagine they actually expect people to use it that way. Why is the first account you create an admin account by default. If they wanted the use-case that you imply is supported, they would have you create an administrator account and then would ask you to create a regular user to use day-to-day. Or they would more fully embrace the su/sudo routine that linux uses.
    - PidGin128 16y ago
      Re-read the comment you replied to. You haven't addressed it at all. Edit: Also, UAC is basically sudo.
      - drivebyacct 16y ago
        Really? Windows 7 still makes users Admins by default, doesn't warn you against it. Single limited users are still restricted to the point of in-usability requiring the the UI and all apps run at administrator level, defeating any security principles. UAC is defective from the standpoint that every school and corporation I've been at disable it, and those that done click Accept every time without reading or considering what they're clicking on. I understand this is partly a user problem, but damn, I'll do one tiny thing before remembering to disable it and I have to Accept 30 things before I'm done.

Hmm, arguing GNU/Linux is better than Windows on security is passé. Torvalds too often dismisses security bugs.

by alecco 16y ago

Hmm, arguing GNU/Linux is better than Windows on security is passé. Torvalds too often dismisses security bugs.

It is true in my experience. I have been running Ubuntu for years and have had no problems. I did have issues when running Windows without an AV and firewall, and when I started running it with an AV and firewall, I also had some issues caused by the AV and firewall. Anyways, the actual statement that Dell made (i.e., that there are much fewer viruses and exploits that get written for Linux than for Windows) is obviously true.

bstar 16y ago

Any os that has a software repository(with sources) is going to be inherently more secure. If novice users only get their software from APT then they will be eliminating a whole slew of exploits that could infect their computer. In this regard, Ubuntu is lightyears more secure than Windows.

lukesandberg 16y ago
well, you should say, any os with a _responsibly_ _managed_ software repository ...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

naner 16y ago

He doesn't dismiss security bugs, he avoids publicizing security fixes. Anyway, this is irrelevant. The article stated that Linux on the desktop is less frequently a target than Windows. This is objectively true.

r0s 16y ago

Not an expert on windows security, but the traditional answer is the fundamental user handling in Unix solves a lot of problems. I admit ignorance to the validity of the claim, a detailed comparison would be appreciated.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Zak 16y ago
Please forgive any errors here: Windows has never been my primary OS. Windows NT has had users and permissions providing similar functionality to what Unix offers for a very long time[0]. NT ACLs have actually been more sophisticated than standard Unix permissions for at least ten years. The problem on Windows is the defaults and the behavior of third-party developers. Windows developers worked for a long time with the expectation that the system was single-user (Win9x) or that the user had administrator privileges, making doing anything else annoying at best. XP defaulted to making everybody an administrator, at least in the home edition. That has changed with Vista and Win7. [0] I think some versions targeted at home users do not expose the full ACL functionality.
- drivebyacct 16y ago
  Have you ever tried to use Windows as a limited user? It's a nightmare. It's "supported" but I can't imagine they actually expect people to use it that way. Why is the first account you create an admin account by default. If they wanted the use-case that you imply is supported, they would have you create an administrator account and then would ask you to create a regular user to use day-to-day. Or they would more fully embrace the su/sudo routine that linux uses.
  - PidGin128 16y ago
    Re-read the comment you replied to. You haven't addressed it at all. Edit: Also, UAC is basically sudo.
    - drivebyacct 16y ago
      Really? Windows 7 still makes users Admins by default, doesn't warn you against it. Single limited users are still restricted to the point of in-usability requiring the the UI and all apps run at administrator level, defeating any security principles. UAC is defective from the standpoint that every school and corporation I've been at disable it, and those that done click Accept every time without reading or considering what they're clicking on. I understand this is partly a user problem, but damn, I'll do one tiny thing before remembering to disable it and I have to Accept 30 things before I'm done.