> From: Rex Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2002/03/13 Wed AM 09:37:58 GMT+12:00 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook > > > On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:07, Steve Brorens wrote: > > > BTW I'd go so far as to say that the Windows (NT/W2K/XP/.NET) NTFS permission > > structure is overall far superior to Linux <ducks flames>, BUT the > > How exactly ? > > > problem is not generally the architecture; instead it's the attidude > > of *both* the vendor and the user-base to security. I'm very new to > > Linux, but it seems clear that: > > > > - a "default install" of Linux from most distros is not particularly secure > > Compared to what ?
Windows is the most obvious answer. > Anyway, don't generalise, be specific, email the problem to the person > responsible (usually easily found), and guess what ? They'll fix it. > > > - many users of desktop Linux will spend a significant amount of time logged in >as root > > I hope not. In fact i have friends whose machines i have not even given > them the root password to. They just use it. Try being a sysadmin for any number of linux servers, you very rarely are anything but root, likewise in a windows environment you are usually always administrator. > > If Linux was ever to take off in the desktop space it would become pretty >monocultural as well. > > I doubt it. It simply would have to be to compete, even the KDE/Gnome battle is a barrier, people need consistency of user interface. > > Users are just not familier with the notion of having to logoff, back in as > > Supervisor/Administrator/Root, install software, logout and back in. > > Um, yes you are new to linux. Try a 'man su', then 'man sudo' in a > shell. Most package admin utilities will pop up a window asking for the > root password when you launch them. > > > Simple and obvious to you and me, but 90% of experienced computer > > users have never faced this. > > Therein lies the problem. It's Better Manually (tm). Most users demand automation. jeremyb.
