http://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/ Switched Comments for Dell Says Ubuntu Is Safer Than Windows http://www.switched.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.switched.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/http://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/Jun 21st 2010 8:08PMhttp://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/http://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/Jun 17th 2010 8:53AMhttp://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/http://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/
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]]>Jun 17th 2010 1:58PMhttp://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/http://www.switched.com/2010/06/17/dell-says-ubuntu-is-safer-than-windows/
"6) Ubuntu is secure

According to industry reports, Ubuntu is unaffected by the vast majority of viruses and spyware."]]>Jun 19th 2010 11:49PM