vlad321 said:
allenmaher said:
vlad321 said:
allenmaher said:
vlad321 said:
allenmaher said:
Anfebious said:
What does this mean? Steam for Linux? What is so good about tihs? |
They use Ubuntu Core 12.04 LTS as the basis of thier distribution. This means a complete opensource robust OS underneath on which you can run just about anything. On top of that they have added big picture and some steam logos.
No viruses. Rock solid. Minimal overhead. No cost to you. Really well supported (bugs fixed very quickly). Very secure.
Downsides... while NVIDIA drivers are great, AMD are hit and miss but improving, Intel is quickly aproaching par. On most other fronts, networking, CPU performance, disk performance, things are better than the windows world. Some esoteric audio hardware may not function at peek efficiency (they dropped a hint about fixes in the works).
You can build your own and download and install the software. Multiple manufacturers can build a steambox... competition in console providers.
|
Linux is not "very secure" nor is it "Rock Solid" and if you mean Ubuntu and not SteamOS, also not "Really well supported."
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux Note where the NSA security enhancements were merged kernel 2.6.x several kernels ago which is why it is used by big data, big science, and big government... Security. These are not the only examples lots of other security measures have been mainlined. By support I mean bugs get patched quickly especially security vulnerabilities, not there is someone on the other end of the phone waiting to take your call... though you can pay for that. SteamOS which is an offshoot of ubuntu core will get all upstream security patches asap... because it is based on a Long Term Service distribution it will do so for years before they need to upgrade it.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html
|
Access control policies? THAT'S what you define as security, you must have scrapped the barrel pretty hard for that.
|
Here is a longer list:
https://www.linux.com/learn/docs/727873-overview-of-linux-kernel-security-features/
http://www.secpoint.com/Top-10-Most-Secure-Operating-Systems.html
https://www.novainfosec.com/2013/07/09/whats-the-most-secure-os/
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/operating-systems/3293430/secure-linux-for-remote-access-designed-by-us-military/
http://www.zdnet.com/linux-triumphant-chrome-os-resists-cracking-attempts-7000012331/
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/linux-distros-paranoid-secure-distros-si/
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux-and-open-source/linux-is-more-secure-but-not-invulnerable/
Read a few, no OS is perfectly secure (they all have users and users suck), but linux is pretty damn good. (So is OpenBSD)
|
I am just giong to go ahead and just quote a paragraph from one of your links
"And because risk depends a lot on other factors independent of the operating system itself, the answer to the question is usually “it depends.”"
WHOA! Who could have seen that one coming, right?
|
What that you would sift through dozens of pages detailing secrity measures and comparing security of various OS's all of which speak very favourably of linux's built in security measures and then pull up and ambiguous comment and present it without context? No that is par for the course in this back and forth conversation.
Is linux secure, yes, more so than most others, yes. Are most security failures between the keyboard and the chair, yes. But that is beside the point. If your OS has fundimental security issues then it is much harder for the thing between the chair and the keyboard to keep a system secure. All other things being equal, I would perfer to work with a vetted and secure OS like the BSDs or Linux any day.
