Comments on: Windows Vista Sucks!

By: skullman

skullman — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:15:07 +0000

backtrack 3!!!!

By: Karuna

Karuna — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:55:09 +0000

yeah thats a good point that DIRT made, you have to set permissions on linux to execute viruses.
long live tux !

By: DIRT

DIRT — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:34:54 +0000

One thing i forgot, to get infected by a virus in linux you would need to give it read/write and execute permission then execute it. even then if you don’t execute it with superuser writes it can only harm the user-land files, not the system.
I was “the” idiot and executed a virus on my system once, some of the programs wouldn’t work anymore (just a few games) but i was still able to log in as root and add another user.

By: DIRT

DIRT — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:27:01 +0000

Id say Linus is as long as your not running as root. There is security for Linux like SE Linux that tells you when parts of the system are being accessed when they should be left alown.
The most secure OS that people can use is BSD. There is very few viruses (around 10-20 compared to the hundreds of thousands for windows), most are made in the lab to see what vulnerabilities there are. But BSD isnt really ready for desktop quite yet, its not as easy to use as most other linux distros. makes a great server, most of the top 50 servers in the world run a type of bsd (or unix like) OS. none of the top 50 run windows

By: Karuna

Karuna — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:23 +0000

Linux distros are for sure more secure than Windows or even Mac OSX for the simple reason that any viruses created for Windows / Mac will simply not run on Linux due to Linux not running .exe or dmg files (cept maybe in wine), and there are very few viruses meant for linux, There are viruses, but they are very few and far between. Another reason why linux would be more secure is that the major distros like Ubuntu and Fedora, have the ability to get community-delivered upgrades to patch up any security vulnerabilities, and being open-source, anyone can have a look at the patches and make sure that they are intended to do what they say they do and patch issue in the best possible way, also being open source means that community developed patches can be delivered FAST as opposed to waiting on a corporation to get one out (MS)

There is no such thing as a totally secure system, but in comparison to windows and mac, linux does hold a high advantage.

By: paCamat

paCamat — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:30:22 +0000

Basically i don’t like use microsoft

By: Leich

Leich — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:42:15 +0000

Ubuntu/Linux

By: rizq

rizq — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:51:34 +0000

for sure ubuntu or other linux distro will be more secure than vista, xp even mac os.

but, the word ‘more secure’ can be too general.

it doesn’t matter if you have a very secured pc/laptop but your own behavior are not totally follow the ’secured rules’ – such as weak password, surfing adult content site (not all but some site can harm yr system), too ‘friendly’ to strangers (chat room), always click ‘YES’ rather than read the instruction, system not up-to-date or open unknown email with unknown attachment.

the choice is always depends on you.

By: CypherHackz

CypherHackz — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:28:40 +0000

#Rarst – I agree with that. Normally, users don’t know which OS is secure. So they have to depend on 3rd party softwares to secure their computer.

#Baris – Me too. But I still have to use Windows sometimes especially when want to download something using IDM.

By: Barış

Barış — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:48:31 +0000

Ubuntu is very secure than others. ( I think )