this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
100 points (71.0% liked)
Technology
59555 readers
3436 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.