• kekmacska@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    there are much less vulrenabilities on Linux. No system is totally unpenetrable, but having 2-5 vulrebabilities is always better than having 30-40

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’ve got a link for you to click, Mr super secure OS user. I promise your OS will protect you.

      • kekmacska@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        you are just exploiting my words. I never said Linux will protect me whatever happens. But it will have a better protection inherently, than any windows

        • foggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          You’re holding onto a long-standing misconception: Linux is not inherently more secure than Windows. In fact, the opposite can be true.

          The reason Linux seems safer is because it has a much smaller market share. Attackers don’t build massive botnets to target misconfigured Linux systems the way they do for Windows. But that’s not security—that’s just security through obscurity, which doesn’t hold up if someone is targeting you specifically.

          Let me clarify my earlier point about “a link for you to click.” If an attacker is specifically targeting someone using Linux, they’re not any better protected than someone on Windows. At that point, it comes down to how well the user understands and secures their system.

          The key difference? Windows actively warns you about misconfigurations that open you up to attack. For example, try enabling Remote Desktop Protocol—Windows will warn you repeatedly about the risks. Linux, on the other hand, won’t stop you. You can misconfigure SSH, open ports, or skip updates without a single warning. If someone’s after you and you’ve made a mistake? You’re toast.

          Linux is powerful, but it doesn’t hold your hand the way Windows does. If you think it’s inherently secure, you’re just relying on the fact that fewer bots are looking for you—not that the system itself is protecting you.

          • kekmacska@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Linux can be configured to have much better security, even by someone knowing a little about computers due to its open-source nature. And it is especially true to my case, since i’m an IT student Can you change to a hardened kernel on Windows? I use Helios kernel even on my android, which is designed to be more secure than the stock one. And there are distros which come preconfigured for security. Not much skill is needed to have a secure Linux system. But you can be a highly proficient sysadmin on Windows, but you will still depend on a few thousand Microsoft employees to fix your system. On Linux, there are millions of people and various corporations are actively working to make it secure, and even you could, if you are really highly skilled. For someone who doesn’t know what a pendrive is, yes, Windows might be more secure than something like Ubuntu or any basic distro (and they propably can’t use anything more advanced and secure by design).

            But it doesn’t take much skill to choose a highly secure linux distro, like Bazzite, Garuda, or even Qubes and use it, or maybe even harden your own. Android, which is also based on Linux is not secure by default, but in the hands of the right person, it can be a suprisingly secure system