Dell Says Ubuntu Is Safer Than Windows

by Terrence O'Brien on June 17, 2010 at 07:30 AM

Dell has long made the vast majority of its money selling Windows-based PCs. In mid 2007, the company did start selling some computers pre-loaded with Ubuntu, but they were not heavily promoted, and the selection left something to be desired. It appears, though, that the company is prepared to push a little harder on behalf of the open-source OS.

A new post on the Dell Ubuntu page extols the virtues of the Linux distribution with a "top ten list" of things you should know about Ubuntu. Most are fairly pedestrian bits about it being "simple and elegant," and its impressively short boot times. But number six on the list, while undeniable, is bound to ruffle some feathers: "Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows."

The full entry on the list reads: "The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux." That's an accurate and diplomatic way to make the point, but it's the blunter title of the entry that is garnering some attention. With the release of 10.04 (Lucid Lynx), Ubuntu has made a major push for consumer relevance. Dell is expected to update its Linux-based PC line to 10.04 soon. When considered alongside the company's decision to ditch Windows Mobile for Android on its tablets and cell phones, this may indicate stiffer challenges to Microsoft's dominance in the days and years ahead.

Dell is not about to stop selling computers loaded with Windows 7, of course, and we're sure that, if Microsoft complains loudly enough, Dell will amend its top 10 list. Still, this is just one more sign (along with HP's purchase of WebOS) that Redmond's traditional partners are growing dissatisfied with the status quo. [From: Dell Ubuntu, via: The Var Guy and Network World]

Tags: dell, linux, malware, operatingsystems, os, safety, security, top, ubuntu, windows

Comments

maritheranastacioJun 21st 2010 8:08PM

Neutral

Of course, Linux is virus free.

Dislike

Report

maritheranastacioJun 17th 2010 8:53AM

Neutral

Of course, what can hackers get from attacking open source when it survives through donations? Compatibility issue is still the problem. With good emulators, Linux will surely get its way ahead. :-)

Dislike

Report

Shannon VanWagnerJun 17th 2010 1:58PM

Neutral

Dell's Statement is EXACTLY TRUE as written. Linux is safer than windows, period.

Dell.com/ubuntu says:
"6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft® Windows®
The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux."

That statement is completely logical and valid as written - At least until such time that the statistics of Linux machines being infected, outnumbers that which is the number for Windows infections. Let me put it this way: Windows has already proven to be less safe than Linux. The number of infected windows systems both current and previously VASTLY, VASTLY outnumbers the total number of GNU+Linux systems infected by malware in the entire history of humankind.

Could Linux become less safe than Windows ever in the future, say, after it has a greater marketshare? Perhaps... and an asteroid could fall out of the sky and kill us all too! But, for now, the simple fact remains that the number of malware infected Linux machines would have to grow astronomically to even come close to matching the malware infection statistics for windows. For now, GNU+Linux IS safer than Windows, period.

Here are some interesting additional points:
-There are currently 671,013 virus signatures that can be downloaded and used for the FOSS Clam Antivirus program, and more are released everyday. Of those virus signature definitions, how many do you think only work on the Windows platform? In this scenario, starting with GNU+Linux is like starting with a fresh slate. How many decades would "Crackers" have to start writing GNU+Linux specific malware to catch up to the arsenal that they already have available for Windows?

-Most modern GNU+Linux distros use a packaging system that keeps the vast majority of installed software on the machine up-to-date with security patches and fixes. This is not true for windows.. In windows, programs like Adobe Reader, have to rely on the user to initiate an entirely separate update-mechanism to retrieve the critical update for that particular program, regardless of whether the windows operating system itself is up to date or not. For example, my Ubuntu systems(I'm typing on one of them now), already downloaded the latest flash-player (10.1) via a routine update. Has your windows system already updated your flash player? Perhaps you should check. Note: if you have anything less than Flash Player 10.1, you are vulnerable to a serious security flaw that was identified by Adobe and your machine can become infected as easily as surfing the Internet. My point is this: The GNU+Linux package management system is superior to other systems in terms of keeping all the software(installed via the package manager) up to date.

-What's nice is that most modern GNU+Linux distros(Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Gentoo, etc.) get security updates AS SOON AS THEY ARE RELEASED... There's no waiting for "Patch Tuesday"... In GNU+Linux, when there's an update/patch/fix/improved feature in the pipe, you get it as soon as it's available. There's no "business case" reason to wait to have the best with GNU+Linux. What's nice is that most of the time you don't even have to reboot after installing updates.

-UnrealIRCD is not even available in the Ubuntu GNU+Linux repositories (although there are several other IRCDs available in there). This means I would have to go and manually download and install (as root), that program in the first place. Ubuntu is considered a Desktop operating system (although server version is available), and it's also the "majority Desktop " in recent surveys of GNU+Linux distros on the Desktop. So this "infected" package wasn't even available in the software packaging system for the "majority" GNU+Linux desktop in the first place.

-GNU+Linux was created as a multi-user+networked system from the start. This means that GNU+Linux was built with security as paramount from day one.. and GNU+Linux continues to exemplify that end, magnificently.

C'mon, really.. Any self-respecting technologist cannot truthfully tell someone they are not safer for using GNU+Linux.. It's just not a logical argument.

Shannon VanWagner
humans-enabled.com

Dislike

Report

Lord FubarJun 19th 2010 11:49PM

Neutral

List has been updated, #6 has been reduced to:

"6) Ubuntu is secure

According to industry reports, Ubuntu is unaffected by the vast majority of viruses and spyware."

Dislike