5 ms·
Quote1: "For example, just compare the file manager application on both Ubuntu and Windows." Both defaults are crap. I use Total Commander / Double Commander o
by unnouinceput 6y ago
Quote1: "For example, just compare the file manager application on both Ubuntu and Windows."
Both defaults are crap. I use Total Commander / Double Commander on Win/Lin.
Quote2: "Linux still has a few (~2%) market share in the general-purpose users' segment compared to Windows. Therefore, there are not so many malicious programs that target Linux users"
Ah yeah, the famous security through obscurity. I think I prefer a battle hardened OS instead of one kept in an ivory tower. But that's not actually true. As a freelancer I use them all, and I know Linux is actually more battle hardened due to majority of cloud infrastructure running it. Which means Linux nowadays is way more under attack than Windows. Except the article's author is looking with horse blinders at the situation.
Conclusion - crappy article, not worth of a place atop of HN.
- wdqwfdqwfqwf 6y agoIndeed, Desktop-Linux doesn't offer much in terms of security. APIs to restrict applications accessing your user data? Sandboxing for GUI applications? A secure GUI path, i.e., something where you can trust that this kind of window is not malicious software but your OS? Biometrics? (making non-techies into using some authentication at all)
- 29athrowaway 6y agoTry AppArmor profiles. May not cover everything on your list but offers pretty decent security.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoGnome 3.38 AFAIK has biometrics support.
- ozim 6y agoI am just annoyed by people saying Linux or Windows is more secure. It such a non argument. If someone is just plain stupid, clicks all links and downloads all kind of crap no amount of OS hardening will help him. I agree that article is crapy and I wasted my time reading it.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago_Desktop_ Linux is absoultely not under attack whatsoever. So no, this _IS_ security by obscurity (in an arguably somewhat different sense of the word though) at work.
- kyboren 6y ago> _Desktop_ Linux is absoultely not under attack whatsoever. Is that actually true? For example, we know NSA targets sysadmins and sysadmins use desktop Linux at much higher rates than the general public. Relatively few people use desktop Linux, but those who do may generally be more attractive targets.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoI personally do not engage in activities which would attract NSA attention. I am a lot more scared of an average malware which soo abundant on Windows and even MacOS (yep, had fix friend's Mac, which had malware on it).
- rconti 6y agoI remember people saying that of OS X when I bought my first Mac in 2002 -- my response "well, might as well enjoy a few years of not being targeted by malware while I can..."
- unnouinceput 6y agoLet's see if actually escaped that. What is malware purpose? If it's prank, a mild nuisance or just a bit of wasting your time I think it's an OK malware. But if it manages to siphon your finances then I'd say it's bad. Now look at the history of Apple. Did they or did they not always delivered same hardware performance at double the price? I'd say you paid for malware, fully and on top of that you're also proud. Q.E.D.
- rconti 6y agoThis comment sounds like it's a 2002 criticism, too. I appreciate the historical accuracy.