Quote:
|
Originally Posted by teknomage1
I don't see where your dog in this fight is Koala, I mean you called me nuts for disagreeing with the predominant meme that linux is hard to use citing the wisdon of the crowd ("the world agrees with him not you") and yet you now turn away from the crowd and say despite every major internet affecting worm and personal info stealing virus going affecting Windows, Linux, because it is constantly improved, is inherently insecure.
|
Actually, the security crowd generally disagrees with the notion that Linux is secure. That's why projects like Gentoo Hardened and SELinux exist -- to improve Linux security. It all depends who you ask and what is considered "secure". Tell one of the OpenBSD developers that Linux is secure and they'll laugh in your face.
Of course, Linux has tons of rootkits, by that metric Windows is significantly more secure than Linux, so I fail to see your point. Just because Windows has worms attacking it and Linux doesn't, doesn't mean Linux is secure. I never said Linux was less secure than Windows, I said it's not secure. If it's hackable, it is not secure. Linux boxes require some locking down to really be secure.
Let's go back to the wise DJMaze's words:
Quote:
if we grew up with Linux the world would be different but not better or worse.
just different...
|
If the world were primarily Linux on the desktops, you might be claiming how amazing Windows is because it doesn't suffer from rootkits and other *nix security issues.
Just because the United States didn't have any terrorists attacking it, didn't mean it was secure. We found that out the hard way.
Quote:
|
Now I'm not a betting man, but I'd say you're out of ammo and are still trying to redefine the issue to make me wrong instead of actually sitting down and thinking about something.
|
Uhm. k. You're presenting such strong arguments.
On a side note, it might be a good move for a mod to cut this thread into two threads.