I mean, I don’t agree, but I can see negative knock-on effects of Linux getting more popular… like more viruses and malware being developed for Linux and Linux noobs getting widely infected because Linux kind of requires you to know enough about your own system to secure it yourself while Microsoft does a lot of the security for you out of the box.
In my experience, UFW isn’t enabled out-of-the-box. WIndows has a default Firewall enabled out of the box.
So yeah, unless Linux is quickly made a lot more user-friendly in terms of security, the growth in Linux can be seen as a bad thing.
Microsoft does a lot of the security for you out of the box
Right. 😂 Considering how badly designed Windows security is, I guarantee you that pretty much any Linux defaults should be better.
Microsoft has to do a lot of extra stuff because the security is so bad. The simplest example is that you can’t run Windows without antivirus and firewall, you can with Linux.
But Linux has a huge market share on servers. If it were possible for viruses and malware to affect it, they would have done so by now. Servers are a much more valuable target for malware anyway since they run on powerful hardware and have access to good connections and lots of interesting data.
Linux systems aren’t as prone to remote exploits, their software is more up to date, and it’s much harder to execute code on them.
It’s really nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Windows Defender is more than enough antivirus for any user not downloading shady pirate shit, and it’s secure enough for businesses.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
I mean, I don’t agree, but I can see negative knock-on effects of Linux getting more popular… like more viruses and malware being developed for Linux and Linux noobs getting widely infected because Linux kind of requires you to know enough about your own system to secure it yourself while Microsoft does a lot of the security for you out of the box.
In my experience, UFW isn’t enabled out-of-the-box. WIndows has a default Firewall enabled out of the box.
So yeah, unless Linux is quickly made a lot more user-friendly in terms of security, the growth in Linux can be seen as a bad thing.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 10 months ago
Right. 😂 Considering how badly designed Windows security is, I guarantee you that pretty much any Linux defaults should be better.
Microsoft has to do a lot of extra stuff because the security is so bad. The simplest example is that you can’t run Windows without antivirus and firewall, you can with Linux.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
That’s literally only because there isn’t large enough marketshare of Linux to make it worth doing…
As Linux marketshare increases that will change but I guess that point went right over your head.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 10 months ago
But Linux has a huge market share on servers. If it were possible for viruses and malware to affect it, they would have done so by now. Servers are a much more valuable target for malware anyway since they run on powerful hardware and have access to good connections and lots of interesting data.
Linux systems aren’t as prone to remote exploits, their software is more up to date, and it’s much harder to execute code on them.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
It’s really nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Windows Defender is more than enough antivirus for any user not downloading shady pirate shit, and it’s secure enough for businesses.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 10 months ago
A security solution that works by letting the malware in and then maybe catching it is a terrible solution.