• jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Few things, in rough order:

      • Smaller = less attack surface. You can strip a Linux OS down to only what is needed.

      • Open source, so it’s can be peered review. There are Unix distros like OpenBSD, that share lot of user space component options, where auditing is a big thing. The whole sunlight and oxygen stops things festering as much. As abosed to things locked in a box in another box down in a cellar.

      • Open source transparency forces corporates to be better. We can see what they are and aren’t doing.

      • Diversity. The is no “Linux”, it’s a ecosystem of Linux distros all built and configured differently, using different components. Think of Linux as just a type of base board in a sea of Unix Lego bits. There are plenty of big deployments on BSD bases that share a lot with some Linux deployments.

      • Unix security is simplier than Windows security, so easer to not mess up.

    • save_the_humans@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      In addition to what others have said, there’s the move towards containerized applications on Linux via flatpaks, immutable distributions, and snapshots/rollbacks. There are also distributions like Debian with a delayed package release schedule for added stability and security. Its my understanding that you could have an exceptionally secure, effectively trustless, Linux system beyond what is possible on Mac or Windows.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      In general it is. Opensource software has less bugs that proprietary. And even those bugs can be mitigated with hardening.

    • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Sort of an aside, but I am seeing Microsoft more as a hostile entity that I need to protect myself from.

    • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you follow the philosophy that it follows, that is, giving the least possible permission to any application, to make it work, it easily becomes much more secure than Windows.

      On the other hand, if you log into your GUI desktop as root, Bill Gates save you.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not, in fact out of the box Linux is SIGNIFICANTLY more insecure than windows.

      The thing is, hackers and hack tool makers target the largest market segment to gain the most conversions.

      Apple users used to gush about how virus proof they were until they hit decent market share, and then they got plenty of malware.

      Same thing with Linux but the real difference is you need a few decades of linux experience to fix anything in a timely manner.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Linux is SIGNIFICANTLY more insecure than windows.

        Absolutely not true. I assume you don’t have a source for this? Besides your butt…?

        UPDATE:: They did not have a source.

        • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Does Linux come out of the box with A/V and firewalls?

          On second thought, you’re dismissive little aside just convinced me to excise you from my internet experience for all eternity.

          Ta…