Fair enough, and I agree with what you say, but your last reply consisting of one word didn't give much away! You're certainly correct in that many (but by no means all) distributions by default have loads of unnecessary services running by default, it is important to distinguish between the OS and the applications. However, there are Linux distributions that by default don't run these services. Obviously, you have to be savvy enough to know what distribution to get. OTOH setting up a firewall on Windows requires a certain amount of knowhow (what can be safely let through, what any warnings actually mean etc.)LBN wrote:I'm not bashing Linux as an operating system. It's good for certain things but it's security model is in no way superior to Windows. Most Linux distributions install tons of useless services running in the background that most users aren't aware of, especially those new to Unix-like operating systems. Every one of those services is a potential security risk. Most users don't know how to go about securing a Unix-like operating system. It is much more complex than locking down a Windows machine for your average, non-computer-science-degree-wielding user. I don't think anyone with even a tenuous grasp on reality would argue this last statement.
In the context of a desktop machine that isn't running servers, however, I would argue strongly that Linux is more secure as it doesn't provide the sort of environment that facilitates the spread of virus and other malware - no need to faff around with virus checkers and AdAware etc.
Either way, though, whatever the OS, a PC can be a (virtual) dangerous thing in the hands of the inept or ignorant!
