Quote:
|
Originally Posted by teknomage1
In terms of actual usability Linux is at the same level as windows for the majority of a user's needs and exceeds it in a few areas (system stability and security).
|
See, that's where I say bs. Linux, in general, isn't secure worth a damn. I'm not saying Windows is
more secure, but Linux is far from secure. There are projects like SELinux and Gentoo Hardened that make the Linux systems significantly more secure, but as a kernel, it isn't secure.
Browse around the Securityfocus and OSVDB sites and check out the numerous holes that get fixed with each kernel revision. The holes get patches, but the fact that they existed means its insecure.
Security is 99% administration nowadays. A Windows box is perfectly secure if you have it patched up, but you need to actually patch it up (MS's biggest problem is that people don't patch their systems). A Linux box needs to be constantly updated as well (there's a reason the IT guys are around, surprisingly they do work sometimes). The only boxes that don't need constant updates are OpenBSD based, but even there the systems need to be patched when the software is shown to have problems (though they rarely have remote exploits).
Of course, it's starting to get better for the world of OSes thanks to things like Canaries and other features being built into the OS (the world of Windows will get better as limited users become the norm in Vista instead of administrative users), but all major OSes still have a long way to go with that one.
Stability is another bs'y claim. Poorly kept Linux boxes won't stay up any longer than poorly kept Windows boxes. My Windows box reboots when I patch the system. So does my FreeBSD box and so does my Linux box. There are no other times any of the systems reboot. If your box goes down, be it Windows, Linux, or BSD, its more likely a driver issue than an OS issue.
And you can blame Creative and ATI for crap drivers (among others).