Linux.com

Re:I don't agree to some things..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 21, 2004 11:19 PM
Actually, I disagree with most of this article - in fact its just a propagandized, shameless and factually base-less dig. I was actually expecting a lot more from this, perhaps with such as a reference to CERT's determination of the same topic.
Instead, what I got from this article is a slightly humorous jaunt at OS installs.
Well, sorry to say this, but most people would rather just use their PC than rebuild kernels.
Windows can be "secured" (depending upon what we define as that term). Additionally, the response time for critical MS patches is usually shorter than for Linux distros. I honestly don't know how people can think otherwise... Because its just not there...
Yeah great, its cool to know Linux - and its awesome for server applications - but it takes more know-how to secure it (properly) than for what the average Joe can easily do in Windows within minutes. Linux seriously fails here - and this is the real reason why its less secure.
Those who use Linux don't know it enough to secure it properly - even out of the box.

My dos centavos.

#

Return to Proven: Windows is more secure than Linux out of the box