Hi.

At home microcoughed users seems more prone be¢au$e and the "average user" is not the administrator they are oblivious to be, should need a learners permit (like my parents...)

Only one is in more ways than many: free.

Have fun!

"Which one is more secure, Linux or Windows?"

Ha! That's a good one!

That's what I always believed. But isn't it true that modern versions of Windows have a separate admin account? I haven't used Windows this millennium (the last version I actually used was 98SE) which is why I'm asking.

Microsoft has added additional security with each major version release, and several of the service packs. User Controls cam about as one security factor, designed to help the user block threat activity. Authority separation, increasingly refined in versions 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 attempts to bring some of the native Linux authority separation to Windows.

I am not sure if you have noticed, but when you run a program under Windows10 it may have less (even MUCH less) authority to make changes than YOU do. This made me crazy for a few days, because tests to validate operations that were valid under XP can be totally misleading under Win10. Once you understand what they have done, however inconvenient, it is clear that they are attempting to add authority and process isolation to the protections available under Windows. (Personally, I see it as having done more to make Windows less convenient. I am not convinced that it has added significantly to the security of the platform overall. I still must applaud the focus. Now if only they would focus on trying to stop using lawsuits on questionable IP grounds to prevent Linux distributions from adding features! )

I get lower blood presser with Linux now that it's all I've used for years... if something goes wrong with one distro, I log in another. It can be annoying when a major distro glitches up but it's free to learn why?
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...thread-848145/

Yes. Ever since XP there has been the possibility of actually running a User account that would work...sort of. At first it was difficult for a User to even install a new program but MS quickly fixed that. There were still some issues that didn't get resolved until Win 7 (beginnings in Vista iirc) when they added a "Run as Administrator" menuitem on the right-click context menu. However there were many restrictions still what even an Admin could accomplish! Someone made a patch by which you could increase the privileges of the Administrator but still because MS didn't want to make it possible to view certain areas let alone alter or delete anything in those areas, it finally became overtly demonstrable that you don't own a Windows system, MS does and you, moron that you are, just get to use what you're allowed to by the good graciousness of MicroSoft.

Some of the problem arise from as low a level as the file system, NTFS being the best of that bunch, which does not have sufficient extended attributes to handle advanced permissions like ext3, JFS, ZFS, Reiser, etc etc. All of the problems stem from the simple fact that Windows began as a shell tacked on to DOS which was from the ground up, a Single User system.

The very reason that MS pushed on to Win 2000 and finally WinXP was to divorce itself from the restrictions and limitations of DOS and advance to the vastly superior NT-like attributes but that was somewhat marred by the way NT was developed in that MS, which had been in partnership with IBM developing OS/2, once dissolving that partnership and trying to maintain complete ownership of code to which they only had partial rights, caused them to "jump through hoops" and make up a story of how they filled in the missing parts with rights they got by hiring an ex DEC employee (forgetting about non-disclosure).

It wasn't until NT 4 that it even began to be smooth. Many argue that Win2000 was the best Windows ever made and that's because it was a fully Pro system with time to refine the code and XP, being made "more convenient" for non Pro desktop use, was essentially "watered down" with the same old compromises. That said, XP did set records for low bug rate per kloc so it was an extremely good effort.... excepting security.

After the Win7 debacle with Admins being mere elevated Users, Win 8 and now Win10 with a vengeance began tightening up with one hand while loosening up with the other. The EULA for Win10 seeks to give the right to Microsoft to read ANY file on your PC including search history, email and chat. Not only that but even encryption cannot stop them from getting into your business and numerous backdoors and "phone homes" are how they get it. Once that is possible by Microsoft it is effectively possible by anyone with access to either the backdoors or the packets broadcast to numerous servers. It is now anybody's guess just how secure that can possibly be.

On top of all that, Intel, a long time ally of Microsoft's, is implementing proprietary collection and storage at the hardware level INCLUDING WIFI channels. If you imagine this is just paranoia you might want to view this

Joanna Rutkowska on Security and Trust

If this does come to pass, and likely some version of it will since much is already in place, this whole question of "Windows or Linux" will become beside the point. That Microsoft has been so successful despite it's increases in encroachment only helped pave the way, but that won't matter anymore.