← Back to context

Comment by 1970-01-01

19 hours ago

>Immune to Windows malware, and you don’t need anti-malware software

Ah yes! The old "Linux doesn't get viruses" argument. Thanks for sharing this bit of history with the class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats

Linux distributions do typically have the huge benefit of having a decent package manager.

Whereas on Windows, you are expected to download all your software from various websites, ridden with big green download button ads.

And as for updates, once again there is no uniform way of finding or installing updates, so your chance of using outdated (and maybe vulnerable) software is higher on Windows.

  • Yeah, except for those frequent "add our private PPA repository" packages or, even worse, "'curl | sudo bash' and just trust us, lol" installers.

    • But at least you can use the distro's repo for most things. On Windows, it's all "curl | sudo bash" equivalent, unless you actually use the Microsoft store.

I haven’t had anti-malware software on Windows for over 10 years.

If you’re computer literate then you don’t need it regardless of which OS you use.

If you’re not computer literate and you click on every link that comes your way, not even the holy spirit of Linus Torvalds himself can save you from threats. So this claim is misleading at best and dangerous at worst.

  • > I haven’t had anti-malware software on Windows for over 10 years.

    Unless you have gone through hoops to remove it, you most likely were still running Windows Defender Antivirus.

    • Fair. I was thinking of third party anti-malware that I have to go out and get, not something that is tightly integrated into Windows itself and enabled by default.

      Also, I don’t need the antivirus portion of Defender since I don’t click on executables or install apps willy nilly. It’s very light and silent so I wouldn’t go out of my way to turn it off. Plus the firewall is also part of Defender.