* Most Linux operators are more familiar with the inner workings of their systems than most Windows users, so they are usually more capable of setting up their machines securely.
* Many Windows "features" require execute and other priviledges on the machine. This means that, by default, Windows security is set up to be looser. These priviledges can be taken advantage of by people with malicious intentions against users that have not made adequate security adjustements on their machines.
* Most "hackers" want to get the most bang for their effort. Since Windows is used on far more computers than Linux, they focus their efforts on creating hacks or viruses that effect Windows systems.
Linux is considered to be more secure than Windows.
Currently, Linux is less secure than Windows in most regards, due to the SSL certificate authority Linux uses selling secure information to other organizations. However, Linux is still more secure than Windows in that the security problems Linux has are less serious than the security problems Windows has. Windows is more exploitable than Linux.
Linux is better than Windows for servers because it is more stable and more secure which are two important reasons why it is better for your server and why you can trust it more.
Good heavens no. Linux is definitely the most secure of the two by far.
Windows Vista is notably far more secure than Windows XP.
Linux has the advantage of not being susceptible to the many Windows-based viruses and malware programs floating around. It is a more secure system in that respect.
In general, no; both have their strengths and weaknesses. As a general statement neither is more secure than the other.
Both Windows and Linux hosting is powerful. If you use ASP or .NET then you should use Windows hosting platform. If you do not, then you can use the more affordable and more popular Linux hosting platform.
Linux, however, as Mac is based on Linux in many ways, Mac is better than Windows. I don't want a flame war (this is a touchy topic) so all I will say is this. Linux is free, open source, fast and very secure, Mac is usually the last 2 of those, fast and secure, Windows is non.
it depends if firewall setup correctly or not , but in general windows is more vulnerable than Linux
Because Linux evolved from UNIX, but Windows evolved from DOS.
It is more user friendly.
Because only 4% of people use OSX, so no one bothers to attack it. Even less people use Linux, and it is super secure.
No. Installing Linux is no more destructive than installing Windows.
Anything Linux is more secure than Windows of anyversion.Security holes get patched much faster, are of fewer number, the permissions system is consistent and reliable, there are only 30 in-the-wild viruses for Linux, and the source code is open for the world to see, allowing less bugs to go unfixed.And that's without getting into "advanced" Linux security features or options such as iptables, netfilter, SELinux, and ClamAV, which any home Linux user won't need to fuss with at all.
Generally, windows 7 is more secure and runs more programmes
i think we can change everything in Linux as u like so hackers have difficult to find what u maid changes so it s more secure
Linux is more vulnerable is doesn't have safe software and it will be easy to have!!
That depends on whether you are asking whether more people use Windows or Linux or which system supports more users. The maximum number of users in a modern Linux system is 4,294,967,295. Windows doesn't have any specific limit that has been published, but each account takes up a significant amount of space, limiting the number to well below the limit in Linux. As to how many people use them, more people use Windows on their personal computers than Linux.
It's not really more vulnerable. Windows is more widely used so it has more viruses written for it.
No there are Linux malware in the wild. However, there are fewer when compared to Windows and access to the operating system is more difficult than it is for Windows.
How the home laptop is used is the first thing to consider when choosing an operating system. Linux is free and comes with a suite of application software. Microsoft Windows costs are higher, and no application software is bundled with Windows. More games are available for Windows than for Linux.
Windows can be better in a few ways. One is that it supports more hardware. Another is that more programs run on it.
First of all, its debatable whether Windows' driver support is "better." The current Linux kernel supports more devices than any single Windows release. Linux also supports more legacy devices than Windows Vista or Windows 7 and supports numerous architectures not supported at all by Windows. Drivers in Linux are also usually considered to be more stable than the drivers supplied by the manufacturer for Windows. The reason new off-the-shelf devices may work in Windows but not in Linux is the result of a vicious cycle. Basically, some manufacturers are unwilling to expend the resources to develop Linux drivers and/or do not want to provide the documentation to do so, on the grounds that not many people use Linux. In turn, not many people use Linux because some of their devices won't work. Linux developers are more than willing to develop drivers for the device even if the manufacturer does not want to, but if the manufacturer doesn't provide at least some technical data, it is extremely difficult.
Windows uses 4 file systems: FAT, NTFS, exFAT, and ReFS. "Linux" supports dozens of file systems, there are too many to mention. The differences between them are massive and specific to the file system in question. For a proper answer you need to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_system . It is incorrect to say "the Linux file system is faster than Windows" because it's dependent on the data, and of course because there is no "Linux file system." It's incorrect to say "The Linux filesystem is more/less secure than the Windows file system" for the same reason. Drive encryption is available in both Windows and Linux. To the average user, there is no functional difference.