Why do Linux users delude themselves into thinking they're secure when the darknet is full of Linux exploits for sale

Why do Linux users delude themselves into thinking they're secure when the darknet is full of Linux exploits for sale.

Name one.

sure can you link me to one for fedora, any exploit

Because they're security toddlers who believe in the security as a product meme.

Dumb frogposter.

Security isn't either/or. It's a spectrum. Linux isn't absolutely secure. Nothing is. But it's more secure than Windows.

Threadly reminder that the NT kernel only had security tacked on because it was marketed as secure.

Not in the hands of the amateurs from Sup Forums.

Windows under an expert is more secure.

Dumb animeposter.

ok but the fact you'd need a windows expert to be more secure than a Sup Forums shitposter says a lot
what about average linux user vs average windows user

Being an expert on Windows is easy. On Linux, with its arcane architecture and cryptic configuration files spread randomly all over the system, not so much.

ok but average user vs average user user

>Being an expert on Windows is easy

Tacking security onto it was easy because it's object-oriented though. Linux isn't object-oriented, which results in monolithic architecture and makes it extremely hard to improve anything about it.

Not a fair comparison, because only advanced users and hobbyists even ever install Linux to begin with. The average Windows user most of the times isn't even computer-savvy.

It's a modern, uncomplicated operating system. If you think it's hard, that tells me a lot about your IQ.

Not really. Most retarded windows users buy protection anyways. Most Sup Forums shitposters are against it and are too retarded to even understand how to protect themselves on linux outside of 'omg don't click the giant flashing advertisement'.

So realistically, the average windows user comes out on top largely because of consumerism.

>because only advanced users and hobbyists even ever install Linux to begin with. The average Windows user most of the times isn't even computer-savvy.
ok so on average a linux user is more secure

Not thanks to the OS though.

>>Tacking security onto it was easy because it's object-oriented though. Linux isn't object-oriented, which results in monolithic architecture and makes it extremely hard to improve anything about it.

so the average linux user would be just as secure on windows?

Are you implying Linux is object-oriented? Do you know what COM is?

Yes.

ok wrong, I'm the average linux user, I'm secure because my FDE doesn't have backdoors so if my threat model is governments I'm less secure on windows

>Being an expert on Windows is easy
t. Sup Forums

>It's a modern, uncomplicated operating system
Kek, you looks like a woman talking about cars or normalfag talking about animes.

>Windows under an expert is more secure.
This why NSA uses windows... oh wait!

kek, this is what Sup Forumsedditors believe

R E K T
E
K
T

>linux exploits are sale darknet like precious things
>windows exploits are share like a cheap chair

fpbp

glibc

fpbp.

>OP still can't name one and its been hours.
>Can't even use baby google mode.

No, Linux is the least secure OS available today. It relies on xserver for its GUI which renders the whole OS completely vulnerable to attacks, you can have the best firewall and hardened kernel but both are useless when the xserver they are running on are completely open to anyone.

Windows does not have this problem.

>Windows does not have this problem.
yeah, instead it just gives everyone who says "hello, i'm a printer" full ring0 permissions.

why would you even install GUI for a server?

Why do Windows users delude themselves into thinking they're secure when the darknet is full of Windows exploits for sale.

Tell me about the last time you edited windows registry?

1.) Wayland is all about getting rid of the dumpster fire called X, and distros are starting to ship it.
2.) X's lack of security is a problem once code is running on your system. It's harder to get malicious code running on Linux than on Windows, especially since so much of the Windows world involves downloading executable installers from random websites, instead of downloading signed packages from your distribution's repos.
3.) It is both possible and common to run X rootless. If X doesn't run as root, running code to compromise it gives you no escalation of privilege.
4.) You can run Linux without a GUI at all.

you still haven't realized that you are on a board dedicated to technology related shitposting ?

Listen Gupar, you street-shitters haven't even mastered Dark Age tier personal hygiene and sanitation yet, or Windows XP for that matter. I assure you that Linux and the Darknet are advanced topics beyond your current comprehension level.

Now that that's out of the way, what are the conversion rates between shekels and rupies? You sound like someone who may know.

Then demonstrate or name a vulnerability in the wild for X. If it's so insecure, you can name dozens.

>runs with root privileges by default
>not easy to fix this in most, if not all distros

But you surely already know this. What you don't know is why none of the Linux developers at any level have opted to adopt Xenocara to fix X, because their reasoning for not doing so must be completly incomprehensible to anyone capable of rational thought.