Not all distros are that hard to get into. I personally don’t care one way or another as long as you’re comfortable with your OS, but it’d be worth giving Linux a try at some point. Mint Linux or PopOS! are both good options for entry level Linux (but not limited to just entry level).
I’m switch to Linux soon just this type of thing turns me away because I have no idea what mounting a drive means much less how to do it and things like gnu, kernel and running on like directly typed instructions are alien to me.
Linux isn’t safer because it’s more secure, it’s safer because no one writing malware is going to target only 4% of the market when they could write malware for 60% of the market.
But a much harder target, as servers will usually have someone at least semi-competent keeping them updated. Until rising costs and you know, the economy, force the ceo to choose between an IT department and a new boat.
Yeah fair enough. I’d have to assume folks who spend time making malware want a return on their investment, whether financial or status / fame. Not a big ROI on hacking my gaming desktop or a thinkpad I use to stream movies.
I think it’s because the general public would expect a big company to come and fix it, like Microsoft. They feel safe because it’s a well known OS that everyone uses. So it can’t be unsafe, right? Right?
With Linux you’re fucked if you have no computer knowledge, like most people. That’s the general thinking.
Whenever linux has a big sercurity issue, its a big deal. whenever windows has a big security issue, its just another tuesday.
That should tell you that windows systems are targeted much more.
The security threat isn’t the issue, my skillset is.
Not all distros are that hard to get into. I personally don’t care one way or another as long as you’re comfortable with your OS, but it’d be worth giving Linux a try at some point. Mint Linux or PopOS! are both good options for entry level Linux (but not limited to just entry level).
I’m switch to Linux soon just this type of thing turns me away because I have no idea what mounting a drive means much less how to do it and things like gnu, kernel and running on like directly typed instructions are alien to me.
True, but that’s the point.
Linux isn’t safer because it’s more secure, it’s safer because no one writing malware is going to target only 4% of the market when they could write malware for 60% of the market.
Maybe 4% desktop market share. You are not including Linux market share of servers; this would be a more worthwhile target.
But a much harder target, as servers will usually have someone at least semi-competent keeping them updated. Until rising costs and you know, the economy, force the ceo to choose between an IT department and a new boat.
Those servers are also sitting in and/or behind DMZs specifically configured with network based intrusion prevention systems to protect them.
So while more valuable, they’re also better protected because network security is a thing.
Yeah fair enough. I’d have to assume folks who spend time making malware want a return on their investment, whether financial or status / fame. Not a big ROI on hacking my gaming desktop or a thinkpad I use to stream movies.
That’s true for all OSs though, you might be a target of convenience but the money is in enterprise networks.
I think it’s because the general public would expect a big company to come and fix it, like Microsoft. They feel safe because it’s a well known OS that everyone uses. So it can’t be unsafe, right? Right?
With Linux you’re fucked if you have no computer knowledge, like most people. That’s the general thinking.
I dont think a non-tech savvy person would be fucked, I think it would deffenatly be harder to use but UX in linux has been getting steadily better.