Is M$ safer than UN*X(-LIKE)??

I know that you already know the answer to the question. It just springed in my mind after what happened yesterday. I was getting some books off of Amazon.com, since they are cheeper than bookstore, and my mother said something that made me laugh 'till I couldn't breathe. I have a Debian Lenny box while my parents have an XP box. My mom still doesn't understand the difference so she thinks that because I don't have antivirus or antispyware like she does, that my box is less safe:confused: I tried to explain it again but she still can't grasp M$ virus vs PC virus. So she says that we must do it on an M$ box since it is more secure. So, basically, this is a question for all you UN*X users out there, and maybe you Mac fans: Has a Windows user ever told you that your machine wasn't safe from all those nasty viruses and trojens [that only affect Windows I might add:)] since you don't have anti virus or anti anything?

P.S. She also told me that that Norton 360 was safer than Linux.

Any ADMIN can delete this if they believe that it breaks any UNIX.com rules.

There's malware out there for mac and linux. Don't get too cocky there

In my last job we had a Solaris based ftp server. It had a Microsoft virus infected file that was distributed to dozens of our clients' pc's before we caught it. Our clients complained our ftp server was infected. Were they right? In any event, we started runnning a virus scanner. That virus scanner would have caught the infected file.

So depending on your home network and what interactions can occur among your home systems, I might agree with your Mom. Just because you're immune doesn't mean that you should not care if you bring infected files into your home.

In your case Per, its the file that was infected. I wouldn't say that your Solaris server was infected, but it did act as a host/carrier.

The argument could be made that it was infected. Even in medical terms an a host or asymptomic carrier is defined as being infected but not suffering the symptoms of infection; that seems like an appropriate description, the host suffers no ill effects but can transmit the disease.

Well the virus scanner on a server is a definiate since probably 70% of your clients are going to have a M$ Windows box, and most viruses are Windows aimed. I am going to add stuff to my computer like virus protection, but I already had IPtables setup via FireStarter at the time. But the orginal statement was saying that, as I have found, the average Windows user doesn't know the difference between Windows virus and PC virus and believe that all viruses and malware in Windows works on almost any PC.

For example, I called an Internet Service Provider, I won't say who though, and asked them if their internet security that they offer through their internet connection only protected Windows PC's or does it cover other OS such as UNIX or UNIX-like and the response I received was: Don't those viruses affect all computers?
Not bashing windows users, but people just need to understand the difference between PC viruses and Windows viruses and Linux viruses, etc...

Hm, could all of us refer to Microsoft as MS instead of M$? I mean everyone is in the OS business to make money...

Of course, "safe" depends on the person.

Generally, Windows systema are much more prone to virus and malicous code attacks.

However, Linux/Unix systems can be very open and easy to break into in the wrong hands.

So, I don't think the question is very fair. The question is too abstract and overly simple.

It is not really possible to vote without bias.

In these types of polls, it is better to much more specific.

^^^ What he said.
I'm with the Penny Arcade guys on this, I tend to switch off without really meaning to when someone starts replacing S's with $'s in Microsoft - no offence Texasone, I'm not implying your point isn't valid, it's just a thing I have about OS-wars. MS still kicks unix to the curb for file and print IMO. Each has it's own niche and should be given equal consideration when deciding the best platform for a given job.

;)Yes, I agree that we are not here to bash Microsoft or anyone.

Microsoft has a right to their business model just as Slackware or RedHat or HP has a right to theirs.

I use XP on my laptop and Linux for servers. I also use OS X as a desktop. I like them all for different reasons.

Of course, I do feel safer on Linux, but in the final analysis, it is really up to the person in charge of the box to install the right patches and keep the configuration secure.

Actually, I considered deleting this thread when it was first posted, as we are not going to be a bashing site for religious wars.

If the world was full of robots, humans would argue which is better, smarter, faster, more beautiful or handsome, as well as fight about why your robot is black and mine is white or yellow. Humans thrive on conflict. OK, that is natural.

On this site, we aim to keep the conflict to a bare minimum as much as possible, rise above the bias and anger, and just help each other.

Plus, rule violators will be severely punished

You don't have an option to vote for "None of the above."

To a certain extent, they are all vulnerable.

Windows systems may be most vulnerable, but for that very reason, they tend to have anti-virus installed more often, which leaves the remainder on a level playing field.

Chalk up another vote for "None of the above", and/or "It depends". For the scenario Texasone is describing, Windows is probably more vulnerable, but "statistically less prone" is not exactly the same thing as "safe".

Depends. My personal experience (previous company)- 70+ BSD servers, all production ones, running FreeBSD and NetBSD - haven't had any single issue, presumably because we know how and what to configure.
Else, I've seen farm of dedicated servers with Win 2003 server installed - they caught some kind of virus, I don't know which, so we had to clean registry values and some other strange and unknown to me stuff until that moment.