A great deal of polemic rages across cyber space regarding the relative merits of Linux over Windows and Mac systems. For instance, judgments are regularly made – and broadcast both by the analog media and on the internet about the relative vulnerability of the operating system Windows and its smaller stable-companion Linux. Which is more secure? Windows with its broader share of the market tends to be breached by viruses far more often than Linux; Microsoft Windows certainly has its share of disaffected opponents who invade the software with ill intent. This does not prove either way whether it, of the two, is it the more capable of being prone to attack, however.
One method used to measure how secure a system is is to tabulate the amount of uninterrupted uptime that occurs. The absence of a worm or virus allows continuous running, i.e. no re-boots. Unfortunately, no foolproof calculating formula has yet been devised. This leads commentators to consider not the number of attacks, but their severity instead. A main conclusion that tends to be drawn is that both Linux and UNIX, being modular in design, suffer far less serious consequences when a virus attacks. A handful of commands deals with the clean-up operation. Hence, overall, security is a far less serious headache.
Also cited by its defenders is the fact that a Linux server can operator with no monitor and from a remote location. This means that the server does not suffer if and when the desktop of the remote operator is infected or is hit by a security breach.
As for other features of Linux, such as its design, there is some disenchantment with the relatively few graphics tools possessed by Linux.
On a more trivial note, it can’t help being an advantage that L precedes M (for Mac) and W (for Windows) in the alphabet. When new software downloads appear on one’s desktop, the choices of operating system are listed alphabetically. I guess the Apple team didn’t foresee that first appellation (pardon the pun) being dropped.