__/ [Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer] on Friday 06 January 2006
18:32 \__
> If Windows disappeared and its place was taken by Linux, so that 95
> percent or whatever it is of personal computers ran on linux, would we see
> endless patches of linux to fix the thousands of viruses that were aimed
> at it?
>
> Is windows really that much less secure than linux or is it just that
> virus writers aren't interested in targetting linux?
The short answer: Windows has got itself trapped. Over the years it has
adopted overly permissive and lenient mechanisms that neglected security.
Security seemed like a cost hat hindered functionality. Unauthorised in-
stallations and lacking verifications are one example. ActiveX controllers
are another.
It is probably too late to retract the mechanisms that people have come to
depend on. Linux has had security in mind all along. Its operation is not
build to permit ridiculous exploits. Many could argue it has been a strat-
egy, but also bear in mind that the hacker community (1), that which un-
derstands security, has always preferred Open Source and contributed to it
over the years. Linux has 'hacker awareness'.
Roy
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_community
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Digits 772-777 of Pi are 999999
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:35pm up 27 days 1:46, 12 users, load average: 0.30, 0.39, 0.35
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
