Go back and read your post. You were talking about how different versions of "Apache, MySQL, PHP" would make a difference. Routers might be running different software than desktops but that doesn't seem to be what you were talking about. You were talking about running different versions of the same software.

Linux and UNIX in general was designed from the start to be secure.

No they weren't. That's something that happened over time. SE Linux and its competitors are basically bolt on security that came after the fact.

Note: I'm not saying anything about how secure Linux is secure today. I'm just saying that it wasn't a design goal from the start.

Yes and no. What versions of Linux are those machines running? What versions of Apache, MySQL, PHP are they running? Very few Linux installs have common attack vectors.

It's not that uncommon to find vulnerabilities that span multiple versions. Some vulnerabilities go unnoticed for a long time. There are often large parts of software that go unchanged for many years. This isn't an open vs closed source thing either. Version numbers often change faster than the bulk of the code. Having different versions doesn't make you immune. It really is not that uncommon for a security advisory to be issued against many versions of a product.

Version numbers != obscurity.

More like Linux still doesn't have the market share to warrent spending significant time developing malware for it.

Windows' market share hasn't changed in a significant way. Yet, their security has improved. Clearly the secureness of a software product is independent of its market share.

Having a larger market share only means that there will be more attempts. It doesn't say jack shit about how successful those attempts will be. You can't use market share to say much of anything about the security of a product. It doesn't work. It's folklore.

Gee I must be doing it wrong. I installed Linux via a graphical installer and installed the NVIDIA driver without ever touching a command line.

Link to the history of your unspecified articles or you're a troll. 90% of comments like yours are exaggerated and based off of the perception granted by listening to the internet echo chamber. Your post is devoid supporting evidence and sounds like an echo to me.

I'm not saying this type of thing doesn't happen. I'm saying that I doubt you've participated in Wikipedia enough to make such a wide generalization. What did you do to try to resolve the issue?

You are not running this kernel on your server or workstation unless you are a dev, it hasn't filtered through to distros yet.

I'm a crazy, bad ass, rebel that uses ArchLinux for my workstation. Living wild and dangerous, I reclessly shutdown my heathen ext4 computer every night. I feel like I'm that evil mayhem guy on the Allstate commercials. RECALCULATING!

YES!!!! I finally feel like a real bad ass running systems with *only* 1 or 2g of RAM!

Seriously, Firefox is fine on small machines too. That means that it's not an issue on an average machine or big machines (which will be average soon enough). Also, most articles comparing browsers show that Firefox is competitive with other browsers WRT memory usage. You kids just need to find something else to bitch about that's all.

You memory trolls are starting to sound as stupid as the version number trolls.

Perhaps Chrome should include a text-to-speech feature to your posting back to you so that you can actually hear how your posted sound with incorrect or missing.

...

Preemptive woooooosh. (Note: woosh more Os than usual because it mentions a Google product.)

It's a decent measure for what people are curious about. I have to admit every time I consider switching distributions or am trying to find a specialized distribution for a project, I usually end up there. It may not be a good estimate for what people are actually using, but it is still an interesting measure of what people are looking at.

It's not an absolute, but if you look that the top of the list... the interesting and relevant distributions are all at the top. You'd probably have a hard time arguing that any distribution in Distrowatch's top 10 isn't decently relevant. While it might not be an accurate indicator of absolute popularity, it's not all that useless to look at either.

They made it to my cut list before all of that.

Or, two wrongs don't make a right

Thank you.

TAKE THAT APPLE FANS!!!! APPLE IS WRONG!

The specification requires secure boot to be on by default. It reads: "Mandatory. Secure Boot must ship enabled ..." It' doesn't leave much ambiguity about the matter. It's a bit more ambiguous about how difficult it could be to disable secure boot. Though it does say that "A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv." It doesn't sound extraordinary difficult, just more difficult than not having to do nothing. It could be more difficult to dual boot... it could be the case that if you turn off secure boot, Windows will refuse to boot. Having to manually change BIOS settings each time you boot to a different OS is still a possibility. At that point it's easier to just to pick one or the other. (Personally I'd choose to just not boot Windows at that point.)

And all that ONLY applies if it's a "non-ARM" system. ARM systems cannot disable Secure Boot at all. There's no ambiguity about that matter either: "Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems." That's nothing short of treachery. I hope Microsoft continues to flail about and get nowhere in the mobile world. People and device manufactures should want to use an OS because of its merit rather than it's ability to rob you of choice.

Also, Secure Boot is arguably a useless feature that fixes a problem that hardly exists. As long as a user can get infected by simply clicking a link... who gives a flying fuck about Secure Boot? It's way too much trouble to infect a boot sector these days next to everything else that can be exploited. Secure Boot won't stop (or even mitigate in a meaningful way) malware getting your bandwidth and CPU cycles. So, what point could there be beyond lock-in? Also why does ARM need more Secure Boot than PCs? Why the distinction if it's purely about security?

Treachery.

I came here to read about the opinions people have about the opinions of a dude who looks a bit crazy and sometimes is a bit crazy. What I end up reading about is frogs who slipped down a slope into a slowly boiling pot of water in some super frog death camp sponsored by some evil chair throwing monkey...

or at least I think that's where we're going...

Oh well. Carry on.

Microsoft has a long and storied history of leadership in the tech industry, and the company has driven innovation for decades

LMFAO

Why you laughing? It's just a few typos. Here let me fix it for you:

Microsoft has a long and storied history of monopoly in the tech industry, and the company has copied innovation for decades