blankenshipma wrote:This isn't just for Mint specifically, but for Linux in general. The security of Linux compared to Windows is hands-down the best selling point of it. No need to Buy $80/year security software, or worry about whether your security armada (AV, Firewall, Anti-spyware, etc...) can catch the latest and greatest worm or trojan. That's what sold me.
The one strength of Linux, its plethora of options of installs and distributions, is also its weakness. Someone thinking of switching to Linux from Windows sees hundreds of options and doesn't know where to go from there. It's rater intimidating, speaking from experience. Mint and other leaders in the Linux community can still market themselves though. combining resources with other leaders and possibly advertizing a bit to combat Windows being the default OS would be awesome. To remove the Windows addiction, one has to market a product as easy to use, and Mint is certainly the closest in my opinion. That is my two cents.
While I almost completely agree with you, I have some things to clarify. If Linux was much more popular, people would try to make viruses for it. Mac OS X is facing this, where it boasted "no viruses" for many years, but recently, many Macs have been infected with the flashback trojan and mac defender. This is because Mac OS X users don't run antivirus (unlike a lot of Windows users), yet there are enough of them to make a profit. Don't get me wrong, Linux is much more secure than Mac OS X, but it is not infallible. The advantages of linux with security largely have to do with root vs administrative accounts (administrative accounts can't modify the system without being root), the openness of it, meaning that people can easily find problems and submit fixes, repositories, meaning all of the software is at least somewhat checked to make sure it isn't bad, and how it updates everything through one component (the update manager). Also, because of the sheer number of different distros, bases, and package formats, it's very hard to write a virus that'll affect a lot of people because a virus for, say ubuntu, won't work on any non-ubuntu based distro (although it would probably work on Mint and most other Ubuntu based distros).
Sudo, IMHO is still pretty secure, and possibly even more secure than having a root acount, because every single time you want to do something root, you have to use sudo. But sudo in implementation, is pretty similar to su because it basically doesn't need the root password when you type sudo xyz if you've already used sudo once. Su, where you are completely root, is pretty insecure. Having a root account though, means that you have to do more steps for su, but you still use su. I could see a user just using root because they didn't want to log out and log back in. But that's just my opinion, and I haven't ever used a distro where you have to manually use a root account, so I don't know how it's like in practice.
Dell XPS 15 l502x - Debian Testing 64-bit NetInst Xfce, SolydX 64-bit Debian Testing, SolydK 64-bit SolydXK Testing
Old Gateway Pentium 4 Desktop - Arch Linux 64-bit Xfce and SolydX 32-bit Sid