UNIX Security: Don't Believe the Truth?

OSNews has an interesting editorial about security on UNIX-like systems. "One of the biggest reasons for many people to switch to a UNIX desktop, away from Windows, is security. It is fairly common knowledge that UNIX-like systems are more secure than Windows. Whether this is true or not will not be up for debate in this short editorial; I will simply assume UNIX-like systems are more secure, for the sake of argument. However, how much is that increased security really worth for an average home user, when you break it down? According to me, fairly little"

Comments

Doesn't Matter So Long As It Works

[American AC in Paris]

That sucks, but: UNIX rocks, the system keeps on running, the server-oriented security has done its work, no system files were affected, uptime is not affected. Great, halleluja, triumph for UNIX.

and a triumph for the home user. If you had to choose between having a virus that both destroys your personal files and compromises your system or a virus that only destroys your personal files, which would you pick? He's making light of a very significant thing for most home users--a full wipe and reinstall of the operating system and applications. That's a day's work for your typical user, more if you have a bunch of programs you need to go hunting for.

But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or a bunch of system files? I can answer that question for you: the pictures of little Johnny's first day of school mean a whole lot more to a user than the system files that keep the system running.

What's the value of Johnny's first day of school photos if you can't boot the damned computer? Again, the author makes light of the value of the system to the home user. Just because John Q. Public cares more about his cup holder than his engine block doesn't mean he won't care when the cylinder head cracks.

Of course, they should make backups-- but wasn't Linux supposed to be secure? So why should they backup? Isn't Linux immune to viruses and what not? Isn't that what the Linux world has been telling them?

Actually, no. I have yet to speak with a single techie who says that you don't need to back up important files under any circumstances. In fact, viruses are almost always a "secondary" reason for backing up files; the primary driving reason behind backing up your files has traditionally been that of hardware failure.

The crux of his entire argument rests on the supposition that, to the home user, the system simply doesn't matter. In a most cosmetic sense, this is true; home users don't give a damn about kernels and drivers. The instant something goes wrong with that system, however, it's a nightmare for that archetypical home user (who, remember, doesn't know and doesn't care how the thing works). When everything works, they can open and print Johnny's files just fine, but what the heck are you supposed to do when the omgwtf32.dll pops up an error message when you try to open Johnny's picture?

Re:Backup

[RailGunner]

So if an OS is to make a daily backup

Google "How to use cron".

The OS already can be set up to do this. The premise of the article is flawed; and based on a premise that I reject. Chances are, if you're smart enough to run Linux, then you're probably smart enough to backup your important files.

Plus, given the author's scenario - let's flip it around: A Windows virus can bork your data and your OS. At least with UNIX, backups notwithstanding, the OS is still there and you'd have a much better chance at recovering your data than you would with Windows.

Mod article -1, Flamebait.