At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
i think you can find such OS which would be worse than 1 thing microsoft made if you even can compare that thing with OS :D
yeah of course becoz when cuming 2 hacking kind of thing linux is much safe den other OS
That's a really broad question--you have various flavors of both linux distributions and Microsoft products--but generally speaking, yes, you could argue that linux is more stable and secure. For one, linux is open source, and open source by nature allows a global community of code hackers to vet the product. Microsoft, on the other hand, must rely on its employees alone. Open sourcing code allows for many more people to nitpick, undermine, and eventually enhance that code. Second, the linux file structure and permission framework is extremely robust. That being said, enterprise versions of windows are more secure than their mass marketed home-user counterparts. Third, linux handles system changes very well; Windows still requires relatively frequent reboots. There is a good reason that most of the world's web servers are hosted on *nix based systems. I could go on, but when it comes to security and stability, linux wins. But end-users don't choose windows for either of those reasons. They want ubiquity and user friendliness, both of which Microsoft still dominates.
Microsoft is still a fairly tightly coupled OS, so a breach in one thing can be used for many things. The MS philosophy of large, multipurpose binaries increase the chances of holes. Since MS only sells info about their products, the holes aren't as well known as open source is. Since MS still has a large user base in business, there's more money to be made hacking MS.
yeah i think OS popularity is huge factor in insecurity, I think if mac or linux had so many users as windows they would be attacked a lot more just like windows
Depending on your definition of "attack" my web and ftp servers are my most attacked machines. For the most part, they're "script kiddie" attacks.
I agree with rsmith. Linux might not dominate the home-user market, but it dominates the web server market. And there many attacks than can and do take place. The viruses that have plagued windows machines don't plague linux, not because windows is more common, but because of its robust permission structure. Linux is just inherently more secure from the ground up in this respect.