Originally Posted by charliehorse55
Another thing to note on Linux security is that the lack of malicious activity can not possibly be related to the small market share that desktop Linux holds. Proof of this can be seen in the server world, where Linux has the majority of servers with over 70% market share. However, viruses and malicious attacks on Linux servers are still un-heard of, whereas Microsoft based computers account for 85% of web-server break-ins. (Most of the other 15% of break-ins are caused by people accidentally giving away passwords).
NO! Linux doesn't own 70% of the server market and it actually has a LOT less server exploits than Windows. It mainly has to do with the fact that unless you run linux it's very hard to hack linux (In fact I don't think it's possible). Since most people run Win most people search Win exploits. As for a virus? It's a lot harder to run malicious code in linux due to the fact that it's harder to hide code inside non-executable files. IE: A jpeg is just a jpeg in linux! You have to allow a program executable rights before you can even execute it. It's part of the security in linux. Though we still have yet to see any major virus problems in linux.
....2.2 User Access
They both employ the User/Root user base with the one exception that Windows chooses to use the ACL extention. Linux can use ACLs but doesn't on default, that's due to most linux fans don't see the need to use ACLs. If they need to do so they tend to know how to set them up and I wouldn't be surprised if Ubuntu starts using ACL.
With that said the only real thing I think that wasn't mentioned is that Linux is much more strict on user access. That is also part of the fact that it doesn't us ACL and so you don't have those grey area permissions.
....2.4 Networking Capabilities
As of late there are no Network problems with each, granted minor "glitches" on both sides. Wireless used to be a major problem but with ndiswrapper that changed a lot of things.
Linux has been PnP since udev....
Really hotplug I think was PnP? Either way Linux has had PnP support for a while. The problem wasn't PnP but more so they didn't have drivers released for the hardware, though with most networking cards this wasn't ever a problem. I know this because I remember the udev switch.
....4.2 Installation and Maintenance
Windows had almost always dominated the install GUI until recently. Since Debian created it's GUI things have become very easy. When Ubuntu adopted the same GUI they took things very far and as we all know have received a lot of attention. Note: many other Distro's have had very good GUI's for installation but never got as popular as Debians (due to Ubuntu as mentioned earlier). Also the first post states that Linux has a more stable Install at cost of ease but is easier to install if another OS is on. The best way to repost that would be it is all false but the cost of ease. Linux can be easier to install than Windows (take Ubuntu) but the installer isn't always so pretty. They have had numerous installer issues and at times have had bad releases just because the installer fails.
As for "Windows has a lot more selection when it comes to software in comparison to Linux it has a lot more utilities and games" that is completely false. I will say Windows dominates in mainstream games but outside of that there is no proof that windows has more utils/applications. I honestly would say Windows lacks in applications and utilities more so than Linux. Though I'm not afraid of cmd based apps and so I might be a little biased. Windows has more user friendly utilities but Linux has more. If you want to change something in Linux you can, you will, and you'll be much happier once you do.
As far as Maintenance? I've herd of desktop users (in all fields) being able to run a desktop for 3-5+ years with no performance loss. They have done this and kept upgrades as well as never re-installing for formatting. I'd LOVE to see a Windows OS run 5+ years with the stability and performance of Linux. Granted it is much easier to update linux than it is windows. Recently there have been problems with the migration from 32bit to 64bit and have had some issues with lib32 and lib64. Usually lib32 has all the 32bit operations and lib64 has the obvious 64bit operations but during the migration we had problems with some emulation layouts but most distro's have now migrated to just having lib32/lib64.
That's all I would say I think would need to be added to the original post.
With all that said I'd have to say the only thing holding Linux back is a few minor categories. The first and foremost being GAMES. If we omit the obvious category (games) the only being Video editing software. Some might say Audio software is also lacking but there is a lot of support for audio and as of OSSv4 you can get latency and quality of which rivals Apple. Though honestly they have come a long way with video editing as well but I haven't kept track with it so I'm going to say it probably still has polishing.
And that concludes what I think this article lacks. If you want my opinion the only real thing Linux needs is a universal API for such things as Games and Applications.