Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Not Linux For Security?
An anonymous reader writes "In Friday's story about IBM's ban on Cloud storage there was much agreement, such as: 'My company deals with financial services. We are not allowed to access Dropbox either.' So why isn't Linux the first choice for all financial services? I don't know any lawyers, financial advisers, banks, etc., that don't use Windows. I switched to Linux in 2005 — I'm well aware that it's not perfect. But the compromises have been so trivial compared to the complete relief from dealing with Windows security failings. Even if we set aside responsibility and liability, business already do spend a lot of money and time on trying to secure Windows, and cleaning up after it. Linux/Unix should already be a first choice for the business world, yet it's barely even known of. It doesn't make sense. Please discuss; this could use some real insight. And let's at least try to make the flames +5 funny."
Office.
The formats are a de facto standard, Open/LibreOffice aren't completely interoperable 100% of the time, and no one ever got fired for using the solution that works best with the documents/spreadsheets everyone else is creating.
The security problems are from everything else you want to run on Linux.
Linux as, a complete platform, ends up just as exploitable as any Windows installation.
Or do you not recall the hacking of Kernel.org and Linux.com?
Linux servers/users are just as likely as Windows users to be running their OS & software without being fully patched.
Seriously are you a registered shrill? so much vague FUD.
While some of what you say is true they are used way out of context to imply things they really don't prove.
So most Linux insecurities are from third party apps* but the only example you provide is a privilege escalation exploit.
*This is still a theoretical argument.