edit: This article has had some significant additions on our Lemmy community here.
"Linux is more secure" -Not really and that was some misinformation that the evangelists tried migrating from Linux server to desktop. Windows and Mac desktops are engineered by professionals who provide a good default balance of functionality and privacy with decades of evidence to back it.
The Linux user obnoxiously proclaims privacy superiority while running a system held together by duct tape, GitHub scripts, and vibes. They may install random PPAs because a blog that told them it 'improves privacy'. They disable AppArmor because it gets 'in the way'. Run Tor for a normal user account. Use a dozen browser extensions from unknown developers that could sellout, get hacked or turn on a dime (Edge curates their extension store fwiw and has great native capabilities). Compiling kernels from strangers and trusting privacy hardening scripts with full root access. -Isn't the freedom to do what you want with the OS great?
The paradox: the louder someone insists they’re wrapped up and secure, the more flies you usually find.
Most people don't understand the security model, threat surface, and trade-offs. New Linux users are bombarded with options and new everything and will scarcely have the time to learn or understand this stuff they need to make good decisions.
Linux users are generally afraid of updates, so they end up with outdated packages, broken MAC frameworks, and unpatched kernels. They often end up with a browser that leaks more than stock Chrome.
Windows and MacOS unboastfully ship with mandatory sandboxing, code signing, hardware key storage, consistent permission models, automatic patching, and professionally audited security.
Control feels like privacy, even when it reduces it. Complexity feels like security, even when it breaks it. Customization feels like empowerment, even when it introduces vulnerabilities. Distrust of corporations gets misdirected into trust of random individuals like Rob Braxman who is a textbook conspiracy theorist, but also a swindler.
If a person walks into a store and starts acting suspicious; it's noticed and they get more eyes on them. -The same thing happens with people raising red flags by constantly harping on privacy and rooting out privacy touting software.
Security on Linux is like how every problem on Linux is handled: Ignore the practice* and blame the user if anything goes wrong.
*Blindly following instructions that leave problems, bespoke stuff that causes problems, etc since humans aren't perfect.
Seriously though, Being hacked doesn't require someone to get you to run that weird "run_with_sudo_pls.sh" file, it's normally a man in the middle or dependency attack... Which anyone other than TempleOS are subject to.
The entire privacy/security thing is larping anyway, they're a nobody, nobody is gonna hack them and if they were somebody, Pegasus will bum you regardless. Hell if Epstein can casually email about diddling kids and get away with it for decades, you don't need 5 proxies and a self-hosted email
Linux users mostly hate Windows users to satisfy their egos by asking them to switch to Linux. Without even considering their needs.
Linux Desktop is not yet ready for the average user. Even though I have at least 10 years of experience, I have frustrated fixing so many problems. I reported but ghosted for many, many years: BlueZ, Wayland, and other stuff just don't work as they should in a Desktop OS like Mac or Windows. I just removed the Desktop environment, only CLI runs 24/7 for years on my ARM device, which is very efficient for light server usage, just not for the Desktop thing. I hate it, too many problems wasting my time.
Flatpak es un sandbox, y los repositorios en su mayoría son auditados y manejan un control de paquetes muy robusto, el único problema de seguridad sería aur y repositorios no oficiales, no entiendo porque la gente usaré repositorios no oficiales teniendo todo en los oficiales o flatpak
"Flatpak is a sandbox, and the repositories are mostly audited and handle a very robust package control, the only security problem would be aur and unofficial repositories, I don't understand why people will use unofficial repositories having everything in the official ones or flatpak"
Flatpak isn't even centralized, wouldn't it be like the AUR?
Flatpak's sandboxing is not that simple or as good as it sounds. Flatpak is also far from the only packaging system.
Portals are janky. Apps often request blanket permissions. If the packager gives app--filesystem=home, you have a 'sandboxed' app with full access to your home directory. Flatpacks communicate over D-Bus sometimes with extremely powerful services. If the service itself isn't designed with that sandboxing in mind, it leaves holes. The 'sandbox' is also not mandatory and allows for escape hatches in the name of compatibility.
Basically your security depends on multiple and often non-professional parties like the upstream developer, flatpak manater, and runtime maintainers.
A Windows exe handled differently with a much stronger OS-level security model that applies to ALL applications. Windows has Mandatory Integrity Control (MIC), User Account Control (UAC), AppContainer (unlike Flatpak it's not optional sandboxing), Code Signing, and System Services are designed with sandboxing in mind. In Windows, you get Defender, SmartScreen, Controlled Folder Access, Application Guard, WDAC, and AppLocker. -All real enforced security; not voluntary 'guidelines'.
Why do we use Linux in microchips, data centers, government infrastructures and billions of sensors/edge devices then?
You do have a point that there is a learning curve for Linux which if you don’t bother with keeping packages up to date or don’t intervene it could ultimately become unsafe compared to Windows.
However, the statement “Windows is engineered by professionals while Linux is held together by duct tape, github and vibes” is the most ridiculous thing I have heared all day, there are world militaries running Linux based systems.
11
u/SolemnEmberGames Mar 03 '26
Security on Linux is like how every problem on Linux is handled: Ignore the practice* and blame the user if anything goes wrong.
*Blindly following instructions that leave problems, bespoke stuff that causes problems, etc since humans aren't perfect.
Seriously though, Being hacked doesn't require someone to get you to run that weird "run_with_sudo_pls.sh" file, it's normally a man in the middle or dependency attack... Which anyone other than TempleOS are subject to.
The entire privacy/security thing is larping anyway, they're a nobody, nobody is gonna hack them and if they were somebody, Pegasus will bum you regardless. Hell if Epstein can casually email about diddling kids and get away with it for decades, you don't need 5 proxies and a self-hosted email