RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Windows more secure than Linux?

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> I read their article, and I'm underwhelmed at the approach they took to come
> to that conclusion.  In short, because M$ hires people to check for bugs,
> while Linux depends on a variable community, M$ must be more secure.  The
> only thing I can say on M$'s behalf in this is that they automatically check
> for updates, while Linux expects the user to update on their own every so
> often.  This means that ATBE, M$ would be more secure on a newbie run box.
> Of course, ATBE is an ideal never reached, and we've already heard the
> arguments why All Things are not Being Equal between Linux and M$ security,
> thus this argument falls apart.

Actually you can easily set Linux to do automatic updates but usually this
is not done as this could be a stability or security risk in itself. I
typically don't apply updates right away (unless they are urgent) but
instead wait a couple days to make sure no reports come out that the patch
itself has bugs. Buggy updates don't happen as often in Linux as Windows
but from time to time they do happen so it pays to keep you eyes open.

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/