black0ut,
First of all, I don't want to sound like I'm being a dick to you. Sorry if it's coming out that way (I'm at work and trying to do two things at once). The point I'm trying to make that any statement about one OS being more secure than another without taking into account the user is missing the point.
Point of fact is that SELinux is probably one of the most secure OS's out there, followed closely by NetBSD. But inorder to achieve that security, these OS's include restrictions that make them unsuitable for general desktop use. If Vista got hammered for UAC being intrusive, try running anything foreign on SELinux.
I think that the gentleman at MS who made that statement regarding Win 7 vs. Linux may be eating crow soon. Notice I didn't include OSX in that, because as far as I can tell, Apple does not take desktop security as seriously as MS. I believe it is far more exploitable than Vista or even XP SP3, but for it's low market share, not worth the coding effort for malware writers.
PhreePhly
Nah, you actually made insightful comments. I actually prefaced my first blanket statement with a comment similar to yours here (that the user is to blame).
As for the NT kernel being more unstable than the UNIX kernel, I cannot for the life of me recall off the top my head how shared libraries are involved, only that they are. I think it's because the linker for the shared libraries are actually within the NT kernel itself, but I'm not sure.
My Computer
At a glance
XP SP3
- OS
- XP SP3
). The point I'm trying to make that any statement about one OS being more secure than another without taking into account the user is missing the point.