Listen, Bruce, they don't literally mean that their OS will be completely and 100% totally impervious to any sort of malware or virus attack of any kind ever to exist ever in the future ever ever ever to infinity times infinity.
They mean that their OS will be considerably more resistant to any sort of reasonable malware attack in the foreseeable future, and they're 100% correct.
Windows, even just because of its target market, will be the low hanging fruit for as long as I think anybody can foresee. Simply because of this, linux and bsd-kernel based operating systems that are using proper user isolation (meaning not running as the freaking root account by default) are going to be more secure than windows.
Comments
These sorts of arguments really make me facepalm.
Listen, Bruce, they don't literally mean that their OS will be completely and 100% totally impervious to any sort of malware or virus attack of any kind ever to exist ever in the future ever ever ever to infinity times infinity.
They mean that their OS will be considerably more resistant to any sort of reasonable malware attack in the foreseeable future, and they're 100% correct.
Windows, even just because of its target market, will be the low hanging fruit for as long as I think anybody can foresee. Simply because of this, linux and bsd-kernel based operating systems that are using proper user isolation (meaning not running as the freaking root account by default) are going to be more secure than windows.
> They mean that their OS will be considerably more resistant to any sort of reasonable malware attack in the foreseeable future
By the way, that's what Microsoft meant when they released Windows 98... and 98SE and ME, and 2000, and XP, and 2003, and Vista, and 2008, and 7.
Pointless claim. Just deliver and we'll see.
Linux has had a pretty long history of delivering on that claim...microsoft has not.
Linux isn't resistant to malware. It's resistant to users who want point-and-click installation of software downloaded from the web.