I have read a few posts about Linux security and I just wanted to state the truth for all you misguided souls.

Firstly Windows is far more secure operating system than Linux is, for many reasons. Some people claim Linux is more secure which is a falsity. These people just think this because people don’t write virus's or exploits for Linux, because the only people writing Windows virus's Etc... are the people that love Linux and hate Windows.... I guarantee you if a group of people decided they hated Linux and started to write virus's/exploits for Linux, Linux would have a much worse time than Windows has had.

Secondly some of the easiest systems to hack are Linux boxes.... you want to hack into a network running windows it’s not going to be as easy as you think.... Linux on the other hand is a different story. I mean the majority of people out there are hacking systems out of a hatred for Microsoft, or because companies are using Windows because the trust and rely on Microsoft. So lets say all these people are attempting to hack into windows systems and a few people are actually successful, people jump to the conclusion oh Windows sucks Linux is more secure. This is just a nonsense idea; more people are trying to hack Windows than Linux, u can’t just say oh Linux is better because not so many people are trying. And the truth is most people hacking computer systems are doing it for the challenge, and that’s why they try to hack windows systems not Linux. And don’t start posting replies about this isn’t true unless you actually know what your talking about

Thirdly Microsoft has way more money and time to develop a secure operating system than any distribution of Linux (i.e. the group of nerds developing it in there spare time because they hate Windows). Windows is almost certainly going to be the more dominant and secure operating system for decades to come.

You did not point out any evidence at all. You didn't make a single valid point. Linux is not perfectly secure, and Windows is not a completely open system, but I don't think you even made an argument.

On viruses: it's not just that people don't code viruses for Linux (out of hate or whatever), it's that viruses don't make as much sense on Linux. The average user on a personal Windows machine has the ability to do pretty much anything. Therefore, if a user downloads a virus, it can take over the system. You think any program would be able to write to the MBR as a normal user under Linux? Think again. Also, virus distribution would be incredibly difficult under Linux. How would you distribute and easily execute binary that would run on most Linux systems? Viruses just wouldn't work.

On exploits: I've never heard of a major loophole in Linux like the ones you see in Windows XP every few weeks. I mean, find me a major loophole. Name a few. Here are some Microsoft ones:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...n/MS01-059.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...n/MS03-026.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...n/MS03-039.asp
It goes on and on.

"Some of the easiest boxes to hack are Linux boxes?" That was that argument in its entirety. No evidence, no links, no point.

Here's some advice:
1) Have some evidence
2) Build an argument
3) Don't go to a Linux forum and bash Linux

Welcome to LQ........... what a great way to introduce yourself to a new forum..........

flame bait common people why do you bother to reply?

U dont deny the fact that windows is more secure so my point is still valid
and as for some evidence why not have a look at this
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9845

a qoute
"In May this year, 19,208 successful breaches were recorded against Linux based systems, compared to 3,801 against MS Windows based systems"

i think my point stands

can you stop trolling?
your above article is what you called skewed statistics... there where only 3,801 microsoft breaches? Do you have any idea how many computers are infected with worms at this momment a hell of a lot more than 3,801 what about MS blaster the infection count was in the millions not in the thousands.

Please don't steal my lunch money.

hum...,
you don't have to come here to tell us what is more secure, we already know .
Well, and if you're gonna do that, at least try to give some reason to convince us, I mean, some real reason.

If you look from the outside, it will look for newbie's that windows IS more secure than linux. Well, when I started out, I had the same idea, as I could not do anything in windows, while I can do anything in Linux(I generally logged in as root). Like, I could delete all the files by a simple rm -rf * from /(While this cannot be done in windows).

After tuning and playing with both for sometime though, my views started to change. While users are not given any options in windows, it means that the options are not disabled, but only the interface for the users are. For example, most windows users don't know anything about mbr's, and so Microsoft is safe from them. But in Linux world, you start out with the 'dd' command to tack backup's of MBR.

This difference in knowledge base means that windows users don't know how to hack into their system, while others can do it easily. It also means that even the casual linux user is aware of security failing, and will protect himself from it. Nowadays (for about 6 months), I don't go near windows and use linux for my daily needs. What more, my knowledge of Operating systems has improved such that if any of my friends **windows** systems crashes, they call me and I am generally able to fix that. WOW.

And so, my sincere and heartfelt thanks to RMS, Torvalds, and all the other brave souls who have made this possible.

i just typed a really long reply to this then accidently closed the window, doh so im gonna summarise what i said

linux and windows(2k and xp) are pretty much level as security-potential goes, both have problems but can be dealt with if you are an administrator and you know what you are doing. the real decider is how good an administrator you are.

if anyone has any real evidence of how one is far superior to the other on security-potential then i would be interested in discussing it.

and as for this

by keene
i.e. the group of nerds developing it in there spare time because they hate Windows

go tell that to IBM, google, or the millions of professors/students in academia.

i dont think the 'real' nerds or geeks hate windows, i could be classed as a geek but i dont hate windows at all nor do i think any of the really knowledgeable people on this site hate windows either.

See I liken all this to the old Sega Genisis Vs SNES. The majority of Linux users are so anti windows it screams right wing craziness. Microsoft does an extremely good service and who here has honestly paid for an out of the box windows....see windows comes out about every 3 years and hopefully most people upgrade their computers and get the newest windows that is distributed with new pc's. Secondly Linux users seem to think everyone should use linux.....thats fine but you go and tell old mrs smith who uses the internet once a week to get her emails that she needs Linux so no 133+ h4xz0r will steal all of her important files (such as recipes on whatever old women cook) Im sure the hacking community is going after her!! Same with me though I use red hat 9 as an experiment but if my system did get raped they are only going to get my jedi knight save game files.
What im trying to say is that Linux is too complex for mr average to use and windows are forever releasing security udates(admitadelly to problems that should have originally been addressed). I dont know about you guys but I have nothing that needs protecting and if you think you need to use linux to protect your "Star Trek" episode script that you think is a work of art and cant wait to send it to an editor then think again......Hackers these days are mostly used by corparations and they couldnt give a crap about you!!!

Yup.. all the best hackers use *nix because it's sooooooo insecure.

Hey, I think I recognise this guy's style...

Idiotic statements praising Windoze and slagging off linux whilst offering no real evidence and repeating the same non-arguments and flawed logic oveer and over again...

I'm sure he's a member of linuxsucks.org. Goes by the name of smokeskull over there.

He was naff at trolling there too...

well i was hoping for an interesting discussion on the security-potential of windows versus linux but looks like this is going to turn into another stupid windows versus linux thread.

i agree the original poster sounded like a troll but instead of filling the thread with useless flaming and heresay why couldnt we turn this into an interesting discussion. with evidence of any comments

oh, believe me, we tried on linuxsucks, but smokey would always just keep trolling and bring things back down to his level...

*sigh*