> | The article was intended as more of a comparison between Windows > | and Linux security - and it's quite obvious who wins there.
Perhaps the title should be modified as security is a huge area and popup adverts are not normally classified under this header. > | It is > | intended more for home users - and if home users don't use Windows, > | they're either going to use Linux or MAC (they'd have to change > | hardware for a mac though..). Of course, UNIX is probably safer > | then Linux - after all UNIX has 5 viruses, Linux has 40. As the original article points out, the 40 mentioned are mostly lab confined. This article last updated 29/11/02 (http://librenix.com/?inode=21) mentions that there was only one Linux virus in the wild. Although it is a little dated and no doubt these numbers have increased, but if one takes a look at specifics of Linux viruses discovered, the majority have number of infections reported as zero. > | but > | Windows has 60,000. Threfore, I do agree that there is no hack > | proof OS and that Linux still needs to mature further, but I still > | beleive that security-wise Linux is a far better choice to Windows. In what way does Linux need to mature further? It is already being very sucessfully utilised on production systems around the world in all industries. > | As for the stability and software licesnes etc... The article was > | meant to focus on security. They are very valid points which will > | certainly be the topic of future articles. If you retain the security tag for the article, you should at least mention the first thing most users think of when they hear that term: Firewalls. Regs. Iain.
