Settings and activity
4 results found
-
13,736 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment 
jerrad
supported this idea
·
-
2,428 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
Also, for those who argue "there is no free lunch", I don't think you understand the open source development model.
Open source is developed mostly by professionals for their own use. It follows that this model is about making quality software, not money. This is a point many seem to miss. OSS is built by developers, for developers, because it is the best product for the job.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
Obviously, everything I've said is an oversimplification, and there is much more to security than this. But for the sake of not filling this forum with only my comments, I'll leave it at that for now, until what I've said is debated.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
It's true that Windows has come a long way in regards to security. Microsoft has done a decent job implementing true multi-user support, sandboxing Internet Explorer, and creating a basic privilege escalation system, but the base system is still flawed, and will be flawed until it's rebuilt from the ground-up.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
Yet another good reason for the enhanced security of Linux(this applies specifically to Ubuntu) is the state of the network ports. In Windows, many network ports are left open by default, allowing crackers an entrance into the system. In Ubuntu, this is not so. All ports are closed by default. Because of this, unlike Windows, Ubuntu doesn't even need a firewall.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
So, if an application such as, say, Firefox, was cracked, the cracker would have access only to Firefox. In order to gain control of the entire system, the cracker would have to crack each consecutive layer, increasing the odds of successfully taking control of the system exponentially. In a monolithic system, on the other hand, each layer basically has full access to every other layer.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
A monolithic design is problematic for a similar reason. There are many different layers in an operating system. At the heart of these layers is the kernel, at the top is the user applications, and there are many layers in between. In a modular system, such as Linux, each layer is restricted to access only its own layer, with limited access to the layer directly underneath itself.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
A single-user system, because it was designed for only one user, does a poor job of protecting a user's files from other users on the system. And, because the administrator and user are the same person, this gives the user unlimited power over the system. This is a problem, because if that user's account is cracked, the cracker has whatever privileges the user has.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
Secondly, the security of Linux can be better explained by its inherent design. Linux was originally created to be a multi-user, multi-tasking, modular operating system. Windows, while it has come a long way, is still very monolithic, and based on a single-user system. There are several inherent problems with this design.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
Secondly, the security of Linux can be better explained by its inherent design. Linux was originally created to be a multi-user, multi-tasking, modular operating system. Windows, while it has come a long way, is still very monolithic, and based on a single-user system. There are several inherent problems with this design.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
Linux has less desktop marketshare than Windows. But desktops are not the only types of computers. We also have servers, where Windows does not hold a monopoly. Servers are arguably more important than desktop computers. Linux is the most widely-used operating system by large corporate servers. Google runs Linux on their servers. Crackers definitely have enough motivation to crack Linux.
An error occurred while saving the comment jerrad
commented
For those who claim a "lack of security" in open source, allow me to clarify this issue. Open source constitutes more than just operating systems, but operating systems are central to most debates on this issue, so I will be comparing the security of Windows vs. Linux distributions.
Some claim Linux has less malware simply because it has less marketsare. This logic fails for two reasons. (cont)
jerrad
supported this idea
·
-
8,888 votesjerrad
supported this idea
·
-
6,179 votesjerrad
supported this idea
·
Freedom, innovation, and opportunity are all important aspects of the Internet today. It is important that we act now to pass Net Neutrality legislation, and preserve the freedom of the Internet. These three values, freedom, innovation, opportunity, are at the foundation of American ideology. They are the core of what we, as Americans, believe in, and taking them away would be a travesty.