Why Windows is less secure than Linux.

[The General]

Read it and weap, suckers.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311

It's not just because most people use Windows. There are other reasons. This is just one of many.

 

[beedubaya]

Linux may be a great OS, but until it runs my 3D games and is easier to find and install programs for, I'm using Windows as my main OS. Most problems with Windows anyways are user-related problems rather than OS related problems.

Wanna know why Windows has so many security problems? Because every dumb computer illiterate hick uses it, while only geeks use Linux.

 

[The General]

Linux may be a great OS, but until it runs my 3D games and is easier to find and install programs for, I'm using Windows as my main OS. Most problems with Windows anyways are user-related problems rather than OS related problems.

Yep, Windows is the most popular operating system because it's the most popular operating system. But until people stop using Windows, it will just continue to be the most popular operating systems. I mean, come on ... I was on LG's website today, "Windows VistaTM Certified" computer monitors?? lol...

Wanna know why Windows has so many security problems? Because every dumb computer illiterate hick uses it, while only geeks use Linux.

But I just posted something to prove otherwise.

It is inherently less secure.

 

[IfYouHaveToAsk]

Linux may be a great OS, but until it runs my 3D games and is easier to find and install programs for, I'm using Windows as my main OS.

agreed. even if there was an OS out there that was impossible to hack and was lightning quick etc but didn't run software that people have paid money for and use on a regular basis then it's not going to become popular.

 

[The General]

agreed. even if there was an OS out there that was impossible to hack and was lightning quick etc but didn't run software that people have paid money for and use on a regular basis then it's not going to become popular.

Exactly. Windows is the most popular because it's the most popular.

Software companies aren't going to sell software for operating systems that aren't the most popular. They make the most money by writing it for what is the most popular, not for what is the best.

But that's not even close to the topic of the thread, the topic of the thread is that Windows is less secure than Linux.

 

[Nubius]

Those charts were insane to look at it.

Was interesting though as it taught me something I was unaware of beforehand.

That the $2.99 buffet is an excellent choice for a complete meal.

 

[CntdwnToExtn]

not news to me.


the only time i'll care is when microsoft corp. is crippled by a crack.


one thing i've learned....more security..doesn't neccesarly mean better performance.

 

[The General]

That the $2.99 buffet is an excellent choice for a complete meal.

That is pretty cheap. I'll have to check it out.

one thing i've learned....more security..doesn't neccesarly mean better performance.

It depends on what you call security. There are two ways of going about security:

1. Inherent security. (Mac OS X, Linux, UNIX, BSD)
2. Add-on security. (Windows, ... )

Operating systems that are secure by their inherent nature are unaffected in speed.

Operating systems that require all sorts of scanners, firewalls, blockers, etc, are affected.

 

[Trotter]

Of course Linux is more secure. It was developed by people who wanted a better way, not by people trying to make a buck.

Every time someone makes a new distro of Linux, they remove what proved to be unstable or insecure in the last one. Micro$oft, on the other hand, drags the same glitches and holes from on version to the next, and calls it "backward-compatibility". Just backwards if you ask me.

Had M$ started at ground zero and built Vista as a new OS... forget compatibility... I would have been impressed. Instead, they went their regular route to make it compatible. But Vista isn't. Stuff won't work with it. It should have come out in about another six months to let everyone else get their drivers and stuff ready.

 

[hilowe]

It should have come out in about another six months to let everyone else get their drivers and stuff ready.

Drivers still wouldn't have been ready. It was the same with XP. I had stuff that I was installing for customers at my previous job, and the drivers weren't "XP Certified". It was hit or miss if they worked or not.

If you had given Vista another 6 months, drivers for new hardware still wouldn't be "Vista Certified", and people would be in the same boat as when XP first came out.