So, in another forum, I ended up in a little conversation with a fellow on Linux vs. Windows. Some of his comments rustled me up a little, I tried not to degenerate the conversation into a troll or flame, but some of his comments seemed strange. So far things are very civil. :)
Here ya be:
I would have been more delicate, but, yes, he had a point.
Windows users are generally stupid. A good windows user is well able to secure his box.
Linux is probably really the less secure OS, but generally people who use it are pretty intelligent. They know what to get what to configure, etc. Those who don't know what they are doing should consider Linux the most insecure OS EVER. Too many options for the average person who will find ways to put so many holes up they will be owned and become a pawn of those who want to do massive DOS attacks around the world.
I took issue with the statement that linux is the most insecure OS ever. I mentioned that, sure, if one installs server utils and improperly configured (or didn't configure at all) the software, then, yes, you have a very unsecure computer. But, I protested, out-of-box, Linux is far more secure than any Windows OS (assuming fully updated windows & fully updated Linux). He countered with:
Which I've honestly never heard before. Maybe it's true -maybe not. I really don't know. I asked him to post a link, and that's where things sit now. But some other things that bristled me:
Then answer me why most DOS attacks are done by unsecured Linux boxes?
Arg! Of course, later I found out he was trying to install Quake3 and the nVidia drivers were giving him problems. That is understandable. I pointed out most hardware is supported, and acknowledged newer video cards can be a problem.
So the biggest problem with Linux? Any version of it I've seen doesn't include even basic support for the newest hardware.
He ends with this:
All in all, a somewhat frustrating conversation, especially because I still consider myself a Linux newb. Any comments? suggestions?
That's why I think Linux as of now is a failure. In the future I hope it does better. I want it to do better because I don't like windows. But right now it pretty much sucks.
To me, saying Linux is the most unsecure OS is like saying Windows is not user-friendly. But maybe I'm wrong....
edit: I prefer using the term unsecure over insecure, as insecure has connotations that come with it (as in `Linux has some socially awkward tendancies'). The prefix un- makes unsecure more definite in meaning (such as unhappy = not happy; unknowlingly = acted without knowledge; unsecure = not secure).