• TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Whenever linux has a big sercurity issue, its a big deal. whenever windows has a big security issue, its just another tuesday.

    That should tell you that windows systems are targeted much more.

      • naticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not all distros are that hard to get into. I personally don’t care one way or another as long as you’re comfortable with your OS, but it’d be worth giving Linux a try at some point. Mint Linux or PopOS! are both good options for entry level Linux (but not limited to just entry level).

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m switch to Linux soon just this type of thing turns me away because I have no idea what mounting a drive means much less how to do it and things like gnu, kernel and running on like directly typed instructions are alien to me.

    • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think it’s because the general public would expect a big company to come and fix it, like Microsoft. They feel safe because it’s a well known OS that everyone uses. So it can’t be unsafe, right? Right?

      With Linux you’re fucked if you have no computer knowledge, like most people. That’s the general thinking.

      • TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I dont think a non-tech savvy person would be fucked, I think it would deffenatly be harder to use but UX in linux has been getting steadily better.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      True, but that’s the point.

      Linux isn’t safer because it’s more secure, it’s safer because no one writing malware is going to target only 4% of the market when they could write malware for 60% of the market.

      • Sanguine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Maybe 4% desktop market share. You are not including Linux market share of servers; this would be a more worthwhile target.

        • Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          But a much harder target, as servers will usually have someone at least semi-competent keeping them updated. Until rising costs and you know, the economy, force the ceo to choose between an IT department and a new boat.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Those servers are also sitting in and/or behind DMZs specifically configured with network based intrusion prevention systems to protect them.

          So while more valuable, they’re also better protected because network security is a thing.

          • Sanguine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah fair enough. I’d have to assume folks who spend time making malware want a return on their investment, whether financial or status / fame. Not a big ROI on hacking my gaming desktop or a thinkpad I use to stream movies.

            • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              That’s true for all OSs though, you might be a target of convenience but the money is in enterprise networks.