help( Linux is less prone to virus attack than Windows?).
- Thread starter fancy
- Start date
- Status
this is only going to start a flame war, I hope you know... :/
but anyway, in the general thought of how viruses spread, Yes, Linux is less prone, but that is only due to the fact that most Viruses have been writting to exploit windows. Since only a few viruses have been writting to exploit Unix\Linux, it's not been very public. It comes down to a simple truth,
Windows is the most widley used OS, so inorder for a Virus writter to get the fame he desires, he will hit the largest audience. The ease of doing so doesn't matter. It could be the most difficult OS in the world, but if it was the most widley used, guess what they are going to do...
My 2 cents on the thought...
but anyway, in the general thought of how viruses spread, Yes, Linux is less prone, but that is only due to the fact that most Viruses have been writting to exploit windows. Since only a few viruses have been writting to exploit Unix\Linux, it's not been very public. It comes down to a simple truth,
Windows is the most widley used OS, so inorder for a Virus writter to get the fame he desires, he will hit the largest audience. The ease of doing so doesn't matter. It could be the most difficult OS in the world, but if it was the most widley used, guess what they are going to do...
My 2 cents on the thought...
Hehe I thought it might've been something like that.
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/pipexdsl/r/arar93/mds975/Content/whylinux.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
http://librenix.com/?inode=21
There'ya, done your homework for you.
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/pipexdsl/r/arar93/mds975/Content/whylinux.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
http://librenix.com/?inode=21
There'ya, done your homework for you.
Deathwalker
Baseband Member
- Messages
- 68
You could mention that as long as you're not logged in as root a virus could do little damage to you system outside your home account anyway
ShoobieRat
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,932
Linux is less prone to virus attacks than Windows, but there are many reasons why that don't necissarily have anything to do with the OS itself or whether it's open-source or not.
Basically, this kind of statement is only good for stirring up a nest of anti-Windows geeks from the dark holes where they dwell.
Basically, this kind of statement is only good for stirring up a nest of anti-Windows geeks from the dark holes where they dwell.
ShoobieRat
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,932
No kidding. 85% of users who are having problems with Windows, especially viruses, are because they surf stupidly and don't read any of the manuals.m3trj said:
I rarley do this, but:
Linux (and Mac OS X, and UNIX) are:
1. less prone to user caused,
2. malicious code caused,
3. and random, unavoidable problems
than Windows. Points one and three are due to archtecture HOWEVER, in the case of 1 this is slowly changing, and shouldn't be a valid argument point. Regarding number 3, difference in architecture is the reason here HOWEVER many Linux distros negate this point for whatever reason. Both 1 and 3 are different per-distro. Keep in mind Linux is NOT an operating system. It is a kernel, around which operating systems are built (distros). This is why Linux is often called GNU/Linux, because GNU software with the Linux kernel makes a complete operating system.
2 has a lot to do with market share, but Microsoft's behavior and code quality influence this as well, and should not be back-seated because of the market share issue.
So far, I have seen few valid studies that claim anything one way or the other. Every instance turnes about to be marketing tactics, or fudged reports. There was one case where two people put Windows vs Linux. They said Windows is more secure. The problem is the Windows guy was a pro, and properly secured his machine. The Linux guy wasn't. Clearly, the test has no real merit.
Regardless, use what you want to use. If you feel most comfortable with Windows, and can put up with the problems, use it. If you want to use Linux but can't get a handle on things, there is no point in using it.
Linux (and Mac OS X, and UNIX) are:
1. less prone to user caused,
2. malicious code caused,
3. and random, unavoidable problems
than Windows. Points one and three are due to archtecture HOWEVER, in the case of 1 this is slowly changing, and shouldn't be a valid argument point. Regarding number 3, difference in architecture is the reason here HOWEVER many Linux distros negate this point for whatever reason. Both 1 and 3 are different per-distro. Keep in mind Linux is NOT an operating system. It is a kernel, around which operating systems are built (distros). This is why Linux is often called GNU/Linux, because GNU software with the Linux kernel makes a complete operating system.
2 has a lot to do with market share, but Microsoft's behavior and code quality influence this as well, and should not be back-seated because of the market share issue.
So far, I have seen few valid studies that claim anything one way or the other. Every instance turnes about to be marketing tactics, or fudged reports. There was one case where two people put Windows vs Linux. They said Windows is more secure. The problem is the Windows guy was a pro, and properly secured his machine. The Linux guy wasn't. Clearly, the test has no real merit.
Regardless, use what you want to use. If you feel most comfortable with Windows, and can put up with the problems, use it. If you want to use Linux but can't get a handle on things, there is no point in using it.
- Status
Similar threads
