Posted on 03/09/2020 12:34:26 PM PDT by TomServo
It’s a particularly disappointing and overall stupid article. See my comments to rarestia at #40.
Windows, or Linux?
Answer: WINDOWS. The number of home and small business Linux users is a tiny fraction of that of Windows. And that's why Windows gets attacked and hacked with far more success than Linux: there's far more of them and the majority of home and small business users have no idea how to secure their systems.
Game, Set, Match right there.
ok- head is swimming- is htis article stating linux is more vulnerable to viruses than windows? I’ve always read just hte opposite?
Yes. I think its safe to say for much of unix/linux’s life, it wasn’t geared to be a user-friendly gui o/s. Original windows slapped gui on top of dos, and gradually merged itself into its own graphical o/s. But gui over dos is where windows got its large original user base.
Everything I used to be able to do on Windows I can do on Linux with suitable open source replacements and for those I cannot find, there's WINE which just works.
I may get around to putting a Windows 10 VM on this thing for anything I need on Windows that I cannot find on Linux but am not anticipating doing that anytime soon. I'm so glad I finally made the cutover. Been wanting to do it for a long time and had time over the weekend. Woo hoo!!
im not on windows 10. my latest version is 7.
The article is crap. It does not prove its claim, its premise is flawed, and it makes a number of dumb mistakes.
All operating systems have vulnerabilities. Some are serious, some are trivial, and this article stupidly equates them all. Some are exploitable, some are in fact exploited, others are merely errors that don’t mean much, and again, this article equates them all. Merely counting vulnerabilities is essentially meaningless.
The article has an agenda — to say that Windows is more secure than Linux. Whether it is or is not is not supported by the article’s content.
thanks for the reply- in your opinion, do you think linux is still more secure online than windows as far as viruses go? I know it will be just an opinion- but you know more about this stuff than i do - I was under hte impression that browsing net with linux was mostly pretty safe? Which was a big reason why i switched to linux as my main online os
I bought the Ryzen 5 1600 for $100 off at Microcenter. Got a pretty good CPU for $80 - a real steal (no I didn’t actually steal it).
Linux is a more secure operating system than Windows. Does that make it safer for web browsing than Windows? It depends at least as much on the browser, and your settings, these days. In very general terms, privacy-oriented browsers (like Brave and Firefox) are at least as important to web surfing safety as which OS they’re running on.
That said, I believe that Linux is less likely to get malware, if only because more malware is written to take advantage of Windows flaws than Linux flaws.
Personally I don’t use Windows or Windows-based browsers like IE for web browsing. I use Brave or Firefox on either MacOS or Linux, and consider those combinations roughly equivalent in safety. I use Windows to run Windows-only programs, and none of the programs I run require that I be surfing the web too.
ok thanks- Yep- i use firefox- and only use linux for web stuff - I use windows for photoshop and windows only games, and don’t go online (Except when I’m stuck on a game in windows- and have to go online to find an answer- but stick to major websites for answers like CNET or Gamespot)
I suppose i should run a Virtual machine fro online when in windows though- too lazy though lol- I used to shut of network connections to the net while in windows- but that is a pain- even though i had a shortcut icon to network connections- i would always forget to use it- I do keep a Macrium Reflect snap shot in windows, just incase- but it’s old- last resort revert if needed-
Tech Ping
I think everybody who follows the vulnerability mailing lists already knew this.
+1!
Just the opposite here. I run Norton 360, MalwareBytes Premium and CCleaner on both my 2009 HP Compaq 6000 Pro Microtower (Win-7 Pro x64), and they perform flawlessly. Never had a BSoD, or virus, ever. And have had Norton for MANY years.
Very little damage can be done to a Unix based OS without having ‘root’ access/password. This article is a joke, right?
The article doesn't appear to discriminate between local and remote exploits. Since I'm the only 'user' on my system, I do not worry so much about local exploits, as I can normally trust myself not to hack my systems, unless I've had too much beer.
Another example of the article's absurdity is that it doesn't differentiate much at all between base system services, and the kernel and any of the thousands of applications one might have installed. Saying that linux is exploitable because Libre Office has a security vulnerability of some kind would mean you'd also have to include all of MS-Office and any other MS-Windows software in the counts as well.
This is pretty much FUD for people who don't know any better. Since I keep my Linux boxes pretty well patched, I actually worry more about my router(s) than my workstations. Routers, especially those provided by the various ISPs are notoriously bad at keeping themselves patched. It's something I check occasionally. Since I use DD-WRT internally I feel better about my internal network than I do about my ISP router.
I got my 2700x pretty cheap at Microcenter, I think it was $199 if I recall correctly. I bundled it with a ASUS ROG 470X mobo. This thing just screams on Ubuntu 19.10
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.