Originally Posted by rilesac
wow, I'm amazed to read this, but I have read a lot that linux is more secure than windows, people say it like if it were a fact. So it's completely false?
There is a lot of room for argument over whether Linux is more secure in theory. But Linux is overwhelmingly more secure in practice.
smaller fraction of Linux systems are ever infected by malware than Windows systems.
In my own experience with Windows, the UAC system is not usable. Too many things simply don't work unless you completely disable UAC. Constantly logged in with admin rights and UAC disabled means you are running an insecure system. But logged in without admin rights and/or enabling UAC means you are running a broken system. I'm sure most people have simpler requirements for their Windows systems and can afford a higher level of security. But the difference with Linux is very clear. The same more complicated requirements in Linux are still no reason to make the system insecure.
I think most of the practical difference in security comes from two other effects, not from inherent security advantages of Linux:
1) Target size. The same level of effort finding and exploiting a security flaw will give a far higher payback in Windows because there is a larger pool of targets. So people writing malware focus their efforts on Windows, leaving Linux safer.
2) Competence of other users. Just as an unvaccinated person is safer from disease around vaccinated people than around other unvaccinated people, a computer with sloppy security practices is safer running a OS where the majority of users of the same OS have good security practices (Linux) than one where almost all users have sloppy security practices (Windows).