See PC-BSD.org In addition to having standard desktops and the large majority of packages you expect to see on Linux, they have a very innovative package management system that I would frankly like to see a Linux distro copy because it has some very nice features.
Uh... so you just admitted that its possible to write assembler for the new SIMD instructions (which are already 100% publicly documented). And if you can write assembler... what else could you do? Maybe... incorporate the new instructions into GCC? It worked for the C programming language! Sure it would take work, but when ARM came out with NEON instructions they were in the exact same boat, and I haven't seen anyone insulting ARM about that. That is MIC's huge advantage in addition to having a very competitive hardware architecture.
You insult these new instructions as just being an expansion on SSE, but guess what: lots of software takes advantage of SSE and the changes required to use MIC would be *trivial* compared to trying to futz around with CUDA or AMD's flavor of OpenCL. Not to mention that if you are really married to OpenCL you could get it working on MIC with much less effort than trying to either write your own GPU driver or deal with the inconsistencies in Nvidia and AMD's offerings.
Lessee... please name one graphics card where you can emit code directly from GCC to work on the GPU hardware... oh wait, you can't because the GPUs are completely non-standardized and require god-awful translation layers.
For all of the anti-Intel FUD that is about to be unleashed because this thing doesn't play games: The MIC system is *LIGHT YEARS* ahead of any other device in this space when it comes to supporting Linux and open source. This thing is not just compatible with Linux... it actually runs a Linux kernel natively. Intel has already released an open source software stack, and while it will take some work there will eventually be full GCC support for the 512-bit SIMD instructions that give this thing its processing oomph.
Driver? THERE IS NO DRIVER.. Ok there is a rather simple driver that's already been submitted to the Linux kernel 100% open source for transferring data back and forth from the card, but it is about a trillion times simpler than the monstrosities that pass for GPU drivers. This is a *co-processor*, not some black-box video card that where you pass off code written in a quasi-standard format to be compiled (!) by a video-card driver.
This thing is already more open-source and Linux friendly than anything made by Nvidia or AMD (and no, dumping partially completed documentation 6 months after the card is released with no real support is *not* the same thing as *freaking running Linux on the board 100% open-source before the product even launches*).
If people on this site were rational they'd be setting off fireworks to celebrate this architecture, but because it doesn't have the name "ARM" or "AMD" on it they idiotically reject it as "closed source" for some reason....
Ok so you don't know how to setup graphics on Linux because I have had an 8800GT working for last four years under multiple flavors of Linux with absolutely excellent results at 1920x1200 resolution.
Considering I also said that the AMD E-350 was misrepresented in these test and since the E-350 is a faster CPU part than the Atom, I must not be a very efficient Intel spinbot...
Point 3 was intentionally omitted and left as an exercise for the reader. If I had been using decimal points, I would have chalked it up to the FDIV bug.;-)
You're confusing efficiency with total power consumption. A desktop Ivy Bridge certainly pulls more watts than the E-350 or Atom boards, but the amount of work that Ivy can do for each of those watts is higher, which gives Ivy the efficiency lead but not a total power-consumption lead.
Oh one more thing: The Ivy Bridge system is also cheaper not only for up-front price but also for long-term power efficiency and you don't have to worry about maintaining 6 sets of a hardware and updating software on 6 different nodes in a cluster.
I'm getting Dramamine for everyone on Slashdot to counteract the ARM FUD.
1. Look at both the AMD and Intel boards for the low-end processors... notice anything? They have all of these... features like PCIe, real memory interfaces, SATA controllers, etc. etc. All of these features consume power. Huge amounts? Not really, but compared to both the E-350 and the Atom CPUs, the amount of power being measured for each board is including a very large amount of power that has zero to do with the CPU. Guess what would happen if I took an E-350 or Atom and put it in an equivalent to the Panda board?
2. Apparently ARM's marketing department ran out of money to pay the poster to describe the Ivy Bridge system used in this test. Here's the short results:
a. In the parallel benchmarks used in this test that are a (probably unrealistically) best-case scenario for the ARM cluster, a single Ivy Bridge CPU was 5 times faster.
b. Oh but ARM says: So what if Ivy is faster! It's a power hog... look it used over 100 WATTS OMG!!!! Well guess what? On a performace per-watt scale, the Ivy Bridge system is THREE TIMES BETTER THAN ARM.
c. Oh but the ARM fanboys will say that Intel cheated by using a better lithographic process!! Well guess what: ARM loudly brags that it is better because it is an IP only company, so you have to take the good with the bad.
4. Oh one more thing... the Ivy Bridge system had REAL PERIPHERALS like real memory, reali PCIe, a real SSD, etc. etc. that by themselves probably used more power than at least one of the ARM boards, probably 2 of them. Oh and by the way.. the power used for the network fabric needed to network those ARM boards... *NOT* included in the power consumption figures so ARM had that as an extra advantage! So in many ways the Ivy Bridge system was intentionally disadvantaged.. and was still THREE TIMES MORE EFFICIENT ON A PER-WATT BASIS THAN ARM IN A SERIES OF BENCHMARKS THAT ARE BEST-CASE-POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR ARM.
5. For all of those ARM fanbois who are about to say that PCIe, real RAM interfaces, real SATA support, etc. etc. are inelegant artifacts of the stupid x86 instruction set well.. bite me. The last 5 years of ARM trolls who have literally gone down the feature list of every feature that x86 has that ARM doesn't and found a way to call the features that ARM lacks stupid and moronic (until ARM implements them years later and then claims to have come up with them first) is pissing me off.
1. I'm assuming there hasn't been too much radical human evolution since 1996. 2. Considering that modern devices likely emit lower levels of radiation simply to save battery life compared to the bricks of '96, I doubt that you are getting cooked by your iPhone in any worse way than by your grandpa's Startac.
YES. Competition is good and ARM has been able to be complacent without someone else challenging them. Medfield is a solid start for Intel, but obviously they need to improve on it and everyone will benefit by having more choices.
Asking that loaded question is like saying that we already have Windows and Mac OS so the market doesn't need Linux...
You see, your post is why ARM has a reality distortion field around it that makes Apple's fanboys look completely objective.
Ivy Bridge, even with a massive number of peripherals and extra devices that suck down power, was about THREE TIMES more efficient per-watt than the ARM boards. PCI controllers on those ARM boards? Nope. SATA controllers or drives on those ARM boards? Nope. USB 3? Nope. Real gigabit ethernet? Nope. Memory interfaces? Nothing near what Ivy Bridge has.
Not to mention that the absolute performance figures for Ivy Bridge annihilated the ARM boards, even though these are integer-only and embarrassingly parallel benchmarks that are about as favorable to ARM as you are going to get.
The end result is that ARM has a *huge* mountain to climb to even get Core 2 level performance and performance per watt. People on this site denigrate Intel because the latest A15s (that aren't even for sale yet) are ahead of Medfield. Those people think that a 30% advantage in Smartphones means that ARM has permanently destroyed Intel and that Medfield is mathematically proven to be the only chip that Intel can ever make for smartphones. They don't bother to think about the fact that ARM has *orders of magnitude* to go before they can even compete with consumer-grade Intel chips.
So AMD is outsourcing DRM with an ARM core... somehow I don't think this is the utopian fairytale nirvana that the fanboys were trolling about when they started rumoring that AMD would go ARM.
So what you basically just said is: 1. You don't like KDE's default workflow. 2. You *also* don't like Gnome's default workflow. 3. You didn't bother to take any time to customize KDE's layout (and believe me it can be customized in some MAJOR ways that Gnome intentionally prevents you from doing). 4. You did bother to take the time to customize Gnome to your liking. 5. Conclusion: Gnome Good KDE bad.
I'm not following your logic at all there. P.S. --> In KDE don't use a taskbar either, I have quick launchers on the desktop and I can use the excellent krunner to launch other applications. I also have full expose features running with a single press of a customized hotkey. KDE supported 100% of these features before Gnome 3 was even launched, so I'm not buying your arguments in the slightest.
This is not a "broad" patent on any wedge shaped laptop but instead a relatively narrow patent on portions of the ornamental design of the Macbook air. Looking at the priority date, you'll see that the earliest filing date is 2010, which means that even the original Macbook Air models are prior art for this case.
Look at the listing of prior art and you'll see PLENTY of wedge-shaped notebooks that are already out there... because this patent is *not* covering all wedge-shaped notebooks, despite the intentionally hyped-up-so-we'll-make-ad-revnue summary & headline. (P.S. I run adblock to help do my part to have Slashdot lose money for posting this drivel).
So basically when people come on here and loudly brag about how they use Centos and never pay Redhat for support that's uber-cool sticking it to the man because Redhat is evil (for some undefined reason while we blindly worship Ubuntu).
However, when "evil" "M$" does the same thing it just proves they are sub-human 1%er scum (because George Soros told me to say that since he is betting against them in the derivatives market and George Soros is just a humble grass-roots community organizer).
Gotcha: No matter what M$ does is evil becuase you feel like it and the facts don't matter. Have you considered working for Assad to spread propaganda about the Syrian people?
Hallstatt (which loosely translates to "Salt City") is in the Austrian Alps near some (you guessed it) ancient salt mines. Very beautiful country with lots of lakes. Completely random facts: 1. The Celts lived there 4,000 years ago before they migrated to Ireland & Scotland; 2. One of the last US planes that was ever shot down in the European theater in WWII ended up almost perfectly preserved in a lake not too far from Hallstatt and was salvaged by divers a few years ago.
You obviously didn't both to RTFA did you? Did you notice the list of components that were found in Flame? Lessee here: OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Lua, Sqlite...
Hrm.. now, what OS is most likely to have all of these components already installed by default so that an attacker doesn't even have to bother installing them AND so that it will be even harder to detect the malware since those tools are expected to be installed on the system anyway... I KNOW! That system *MUST* be Windows because Microsoft is known to build all of its products on open source software! [/sarcasm]
I can bet you that a very large percentage of Linux boxes have all of those tools, except for Lua, already installed. A bunch of the desktop/workstation systems might have Lua too, and malware could simply get a legitimate Lua package from a legitimate repository to make it look like Lua belongs on the system in the first place.
If I saw all that stuff on a Windows machine and didn't already know why why that stuff was installed in the first place, then red flags would go off, but on Linux I'd expect all that stuff to be there just because of normal package dependencies!
But hey, you had the usual mouth-breathing M$-conspiracy-I'm-still-living-in-1998 drivel post, so that MUST be the reason that Linux is magically and completely invincible while Windows always sux0rz.
When I first saw the Engadget review I thought it was a little bit off-kilter since it was trying to use the Pi for desktop & media playback use instead of for simple programming or embedded projects.
Then I remembered that lots of the demonstrations shown off on the Raspberry Pi website show using the Pi for the same purposes, especially with the heavy emphasis placed on XBMC. I think part of the issue with the Raspberry Pi is that the developers need to focus more on realistic usage scenarios for the device so that reviewers have the correct expectations going into the review.
Lol... I ordered mine on March 3 and the last update I got says it might ship in about 2 weeks... maybe...
I like a lot of things about Raspberry Pi, but they made a big mistake by overhyping the product. The next closest competitor I can think of is the Beagleboard, and while the Beagleboards are more expensive they aren't insane (still $100) and have a much more mature software and developer ecosystem.
1. Google calendar has the same issue which is more embarrassing since Google calendar is online by definition and can be fixed more easily than outlook.
2. Apparently you can download an updated holidays file and patch Outlook.
3. Now that we've had our daily Microsoft-is-the-stupidest-and-evilest-company-on-the-planet-for-not-accurately-predicting-an-arbitrary-holiday-date-change-years-in-advance post, I'd like to see some more stories about how Americans are stupid and evil and some scientific studies showing that Christians are genetically inferior to the Atheist master race.
This is like saying: Some companies have prevented their drivers from parking their cars in the bad part of town (i.e. the cloud). These guys all drive Fords, but I drive a Chevy. So why not leave my Chevy in the bad part of town instead!
Oh wait...
I'm pretty sure DropBox runs its servers on Linux, but that's completely beside the point. Guess what's more secure? A fileserver that you own and physcially control that happens to be running Windows that's properly configured with strong ACLs and sits behind a VPN gateway... or a Linux powered PHP CMS setup that is leased from one of your competitors and is accessible to anyone who can guess a username/passwor combo?
Guess what: that example doesn't mean that "Linux is not secure" or that "only Windows is secure" either. Frankly, BOTH can be insecure and BOTH can be secure based on the usage and competency of the people who set them up.
Slashdot Mirror
See PC-BSD.org In addition to having standard desktops and the large majority of packages you expect to see on Linux, they have a very innovative package management system that I would frankly like to see a Linux distro copy because it has some very nice features.
Uh... so you just admitted that its possible to write assembler for the new SIMD instructions (which are already 100% publicly documented). And if you can write assembler... what else could you do? Maybe... incorporate the new instructions into GCC? It worked for the C programming language! Sure it would take work, but when ARM came out with NEON instructions they were in the exact same boat, and I haven't seen anyone insulting ARM about that. That is MIC's huge advantage in addition to having a very competitive hardware architecture.
You insult these new instructions as just being an expansion on SSE, but guess what: lots of software takes advantage of SSE and the changes required to use MIC would be *trivial* compared to trying to futz around with CUDA or AMD's flavor of OpenCL. Not to mention that if you are really married to OpenCL you could get it working on MIC with much less effort than trying to either write your own GPU driver or deal with the inconsistencies in Nvidia and AMD's offerings.
Lessee... please name one graphics card where you can emit code directly from GCC to work on the GPU hardware... oh wait, you can't because the GPUs are completely non-standardized and require god-awful translation layers.
For all of the anti-Intel FUD that is about to be unleashed because this thing doesn't play games: The MIC system is *LIGHT YEARS* ahead of any other device in this space when it comes to supporting Linux and open source. This thing is not just compatible with Linux... it actually runs a Linux kernel natively. Intel has already released an open source software stack, and while it will take some work there will eventually be full GCC support for the 512-bit SIMD instructions that give this thing its processing oomph.
Driver? THERE IS NO DRIVER.. Ok there is a rather simple driver that's already been submitted to the Linux kernel 100% open source for transferring data back and forth from the card, but it is about a trillion times simpler than the monstrosities that pass for GPU drivers. This is a *co-processor*, not some black-box video card that where you pass off code written in a quasi-standard format to be compiled (!) by a video-card driver.
This thing is already more open-source and Linux friendly than anything made by Nvidia or AMD (and no, dumping partially completed documentation 6 months after the card is released with no real support is *not* the same thing as *freaking running Linux on the board 100% open-source before the product even launches*).
If people on this site were rational they'd be setting off fireworks to celebrate this architecture, but because it doesn't have the name "ARM" or "AMD" on it they idiotically reject it as "closed source" for some reason....
Ok so you don't know how to setup graphics on Linux because I have had an 8800GT working for last four years under multiple flavors of Linux with absolutely excellent results at 1920x1200 resolution.
Considering I also said that the AMD E-350 was misrepresented in these test and since the E-350 is a faster CPU part than the Atom, I must not be a very efficient Intel spinbot...
Point 3 was intentionally omitted and left as an exercise for the reader. If I had been using decimal points, I would have chalked it up to the FDIV bug. ;-)
You're confusing efficiency with total power consumption. A desktop Ivy Bridge certainly pulls more watts than the E-350 or Atom boards, but the amount of work that Ivy can do for each of those watts is higher, which gives Ivy the efficiency lead but not a total power-consumption lead.
Oh one more thing: The Ivy Bridge system is also cheaper not only for up-front price but also for long-term power efficiency and you don't have to worry about maintaining 6 sets of a hardware and updating software on 6 different nodes in a cluster.
I'm getting Dramamine for everyone on Slashdot to counteract the ARM FUD.
1. Look at both the AMD and Intel boards for the low-end processors... notice anything? They have all of these... features like PCIe, real memory interfaces, SATA controllers, etc. etc. All of these features consume power. Huge amounts? Not really, but compared to both the E-350 and the Atom CPUs, the amount of power being measured for each board is including a very large amount of power that has zero to do with the CPU. Guess what would happen if I took an E-350 or Atom and put it in an equivalent to the Panda board?
2. Apparently ARM's marketing department ran out of money to pay the poster to describe the Ivy Bridge system used in this test. Here's the short results:
a. In the parallel benchmarks used in this test that are a (probably unrealistically) best-case scenario for the ARM cluster, a single Ivy Bridge CPU was 5 times faster.
b. Oh but ARM says: So what if Ivy is faster! It's a power hog... look it used over 100 WATTS OMG!!!! Well guess what? On a performace per-watt scale, the Ivy Bridge system is THREE TIMES BETTER THAN ARM.
c. Oh but the ARM fanboys will say that Intel cheated by using a better lithographic process!! Well guess what: ARM loudly brags that it is better because it is an IP only company, so you have to take the good with the bad.
4. Oh one more thing... the Ivy Bridge system had REAL PERIPHERALS like real memory, reali PCIe, a real SSD, etc. etc. that by themselves probably used more power than at least one of the ARM boards, probably 2 of them. Oh and by the way.. the power used for the network fabric needed to network those ARM boards... *NOT* included in the power consumption figures so ARM had that as an extra advantage! So in many ways the Ivy Bridge system was intentionally disadvantaged.. and was still THREE TIMES MORE EFFICIENT ON A PER-WATT BASIS THAN ARM IN A SERIES OF BENCHMARKS THAT ARE BEST-CASE-POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR ARM.
5. For all of those ARM fanbois who are about to say that PCIe, real RAM interfaces, real SATA support, etc. etc. are inelegant artifacts of the stupid x86 instruction set well.. bite me. The last 5 years of ARM trolls who have literally gone down the feature list of every feature that x86 has that ARM doesn't and found a way to call the features that ARM lacks stupid and moronic (until ARM implements them years later and then claims to have come up with them first) is pissing me off.
1. I'm assuming there hasn't been too much radical human evolution since 1996.
2. Considering that modern devices likely emit lower levels of radiation simply to save battery life compared to the bricks of '96, I doubt that you are getting cooked by your iPhone in any worse way than by your grandpa's Startac.
YES. Competition is good and ARM has been able to be complacent without someone else challenging them. Medfield is a solid start for Intel, but obviously they need to improve on it and everyone will benefit by having more choices.
Asking that loaded question is like saying that we already have Windows and Mac OS so the market doesn't need Linux...
You see, your post is why ARM has a reality distortion field around it that makes Apple's fanboys look completely objective.
Ivy Bridge, even with a massive number of peripherals and extra devices that suck down power, was about THREE TIMES more efficient per-watt than the ARM boards. PCI controllers on those ARM boards? Nope. SATA controllers or drives on those ARM boards? Nope. USB 3? Nope. Real gigabit ethernet? Nope. Memory interfaces? Nothing near what Ivy Bridge has.
Not to mention that the absolute performance figures for Ivy Bridge annihilated the ARM boards, even though these are integer-only and embarrassingly parallel benchmarks that are about as favorable to ARM as you are going to get.
The end result is that ARM has a *huge* mountain to climb to even get Core 2 level performance and performance per watt. People on this site denigrate Intel because the latest A15s (that aren't even for sale yet) are ahead of Medfield. Those people think that a 30% advantage in Smartphones means that ARM has permanently destroyed Intel and that Medfield is mathematically proven to be the only chip that Intel can ever make for smartphones. They don't bother to think about the fact that ARM has *orders of magnitude* to go before they can even compete with consumer-grade Intel chips.
So AMD is outsourcing DRM with an ARM core... somehow I don't think this is the utopian fairytale nirvana that the fanboys were trolling about when they started rumoring that AMD would go ARM.
Just go to H1B v6 and you'll get a HUGE number of available slots.
So what you basically just said is:
1. You don't like KDE's default workflow.
2. You *also* don't like Gnome's default workflow.
3. You didn't bother to take any time to customize KDE's layout (and believe me it can be customized in some MAJOR ways that Gnome intentionally prevents you from doing).
4. You did bother to take the time to customize Gnome to your liking.
5. Conclusion: Gnome Good KDE bad.
I'm not following your logic at all there. P.S. --> In KDE don't use a taskbar either, I have quick launchers on the desktop and I can use the excellent krunner to launch other applications. I also have full expose features running with a single press of a customized hotkey. KDE supported 100% of these features before Gnome 3 was even launched, so I'm not buying your arguments in the slightest.
This is not a "broad" patent on any wedge shaped laptop but instead a relatively narrow patent on portions of the ornamental design of the Macbook air. Looking at the priority date, you'll see that the earliest filing date is 2010, which means that even the original Macbook Air models are prior art for this case.
Look at the listing of prior art and you'll see PLENTY of wedge-shaped notebooks that are already out there... because this patent is *not* covering all wedge-shaped notebooks, despite the intentionally hyped-up-so-we'll-make-ad-revnue summary & headline. (P.S. I run adblock to help do my part to have Slashdot lose money for posting this drivel).
So basically when people come on here and loudly brag about how they use Centos and never pay Redhat for support that's uber-cool sticking it to the man because Redhat is evil (for some undefined reason while we blindly worship Ubuntu).
However, when "evil" "M$" does the same thing it just proves they are sub-human 1%er scum (because George Soros told me to say that since he is betting against them in the derivatives market and George Soros is just a humble grass-roots community organizer).
Gotcha: No matter what M$ does is evil becuase you feel like it and the facts don't matter. Have you considered working for Assad to spread propaganda about the Syrian people?
P.S. --> The larger city of "Salzburg" also loosely translates to Salt City... but from German rather than the ancient Celtic.
Hallstatt (which loosely translates to "Salt City") is in the Austrian Alps near some (you guessed it) ancient salt mines. Very beautiful country with lots of lakes. Completely random facts: 1. The Celts lived there 4,000 years ago before they migrated to Ireland & Scotland; 2. One of the last US planes that was ever shot down in the European theater in WWII ended up almost perfectly preserved in a lake not too far from Hallstatt and was salvaged by divers a few years ago.
You obviously didn't both to RTFA did you? Did you notice the list of components that were found in Flame? Lessee here: OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Lua, Sqlite...
Hrm.. now, what OS is most likely to have all of these components already installed by default so that an attacker doesn't even have to bother installing them AND so that it will be even harder to detect the malware since those tools are expected to be installed on the system anyway... I KNOW! That system *MUST* be Windows because Microsoft is known to build all of its products on open source software! [/sarcasm]
I can bet you that a very large percentage of Linux boxes have all of those tools, except for Lua, already installed. A bunch of the desktop/workstation systems might have Lua too, and malware could simply get a legitimate Lua package from a legitimate repository to make it look like Lua belongs on the system in the first place.
If I saw all that stuff on a Windows machine and didn't already know why why that stuff was installed in the first place, then red flags would go off, but on Linux I'd expect all that stuff to be there just because of normal package dependencies!
But hey, you had the usual mouth-breathing M$-conspiracy-I'm-still-living-in-1998 drivel post, so that MUST be the reason that Linux is magically and completely invincible while Windows always sux0rz.
If these things really are being written by western intelligence agencies then don't think that Windows is the only platform they can compromise.
When I first saw the Engadget review I thought it was a little bit off-kilter since it was trying to use the Pi for desktop & media playback use instead of for simple programming or embedded projects.
Then I remembered that lots of the demonstrations shown off on the Raspberry Pi website show using the Pi for the same purposes, especially with the heavy emphasis placed on XBMC. I think part of the issue with the Raspberry Pi is that the developers need to focus more on realistic usage scenarios for the device so that reviewers have the correct expectations going into the review.
Lol... I ordered mine on March 3 and the last update I got says it might ship in about 2 weeks... maybe...
I like a lot of things about Raspberry Pi, but they made a big mistake by overhyping the product. The next closest competitor I can think of is the Beagleboard, and while the Beagleboards are more expensive they aren't insane (still $100) and have a much more mature software and developer ecosystem.
1. Google calendar has the same issue which is more embarrassing since Google calendar is online by definition and can be fixed more easily than outlook.
2. Apparently you can download an updated holidays file and patch Outlook.
3. Now that we've had our daily Microsoft-is-the-stupidest-and-evilest-company-on-the-planet-for-not-accurately-predicting-an-arbitrary-holiday-date-change-years-in-advance post, I'd like to see some more stories about how Americans are stupid and evil and some scientific studies showing that Christians are genetically inferior to the Atheist master race.
This is like saying: Some companies have prevented their drivers from parking their cars in the bad part of town (i.e. the cloud). These guys all drive Fords, but I drive a Chevy. So why not leave my Chevy in the bad part of town instead!
Oh wait...
I'm pretty sure DropBox runs its servers on Linux, but that's completely beside the point. Guess what's more secure? A fileserver that you own and physcially control that happens to be running Windows that's properly configured with strong ACLs and sits behind a VPN gateway... or a Linux powered PHP CMS setup that is leased from one of your competitors and is accessible to anyone who can guess a username/passwor combo?
Guess what: that example doesn't mean that "Linux is not secure" or that "only Windows is secure" either. Frankly, BOTH can be insecure and BOTH can be secure based on the usage and competency of the people who set them up.