Comment Re:makes me chuckle. (Score 1) 795
Sure more "hackers" might attack Linux if it had more market share, but that doesn't mean that more exploits would be found, especially if the system is inherently more secure.
Unfortunately, Linux is not inherently more secure. Don't get me wrong. I prefer Linux to M$, but according to MaximumPC, (sorry I can't cite the exact issue and article,) Windows 2000 was the only operating system to meet all of the DoD security requirements. Linux did far worse.
I have my own theories as to Linux's imagined security superiority:
(1) Minority - Linux machines are a minority. Yes, the number is growing everyday but still a minority. Hackers exploit flaws either to steal information for monetary gain or to gain notoriety. The results are not quite worth the effort.
(2) Community - Linux has a strong community. A large percentage of Linux users would report a flaw to the community rather than exploit it.
Unfortunately, Linux is not inherently more secure. Don't get me wrong. I prefer Linux to M$, but according to MaximumPC, (sorry I can't cite the exact issue and article,) Windows 2000 was the only operating system to meet all of the DoD security requirements. Linux did far worse.
I have my own theories as to Linux's imagined security superiority:
(1) Minority - Linux machines are a minority. Yes, the number is growing everyday but still a minority. Hackers exploit flaws either to steal information for monetary gain or to gain notoriety. The results are not quite worth the effort.
(2) Community - Linux has a strong community. A large percentage of Linux users would report a flaw to the community rather than exploit it.
