Not sure how to vote honestly, any can be secure if tweaked out of the box and their use cases (Are we talking public facing server, desktop, etc). Honestly a hardened Windows or Linux distro are on equal ground.
Even limiting the use cases to just desktops, all (Windows, Linux, etc) are as secure as the user maintaining it. Though I am sure some will see that as a cop out, so assuming no modifications are performed on the system out of the box (vanilla install), and assuming the user has no computing security sense once so ever, my vote? A Linux desktop, any flavor will probably do (most are bloated these days anyway). Out of all the options in the poll, that would be the "most secure". The real question you should then be asking, how did someone with no computing sense end up on Linux?
For one reason they fall for anti-MS statements, for another it's generally free compared to 100+ bucks for the OS alone. Underneath the "user friendly" paint jobs most distros have been given these days in the vain hope they'll have a chance to have a "year of the Linux desktop", Linux is still the same old Linux, error codes and all. Users can't be relied upon to make their OS secure. If most users had the ability and will to, we wouldn't be having as many issues with hacking as we are. If the answer is going to be "An OS is as secure as the user makes it", we're all doomed. And yeah, servers and desktops are entirely different worlds.
In other words, successful Desktop Operating Systems need to do be smart (secure) themselves and take into consideration the user that falls for every social engineering tactic. Desktop Operating Systems should be useful and nice for all their potential users - their purpose shouldn't be to segregate the more adapted from the less adapted. It this is a side effect, it's a bad side effect that needs to be fixed IMO.
Which is another reason why 100% computing security remains and will remain a myth. Operating systems will never be made bug and hole-proof, users will always find ways around things that bug them and hackers will always find ways around the best roadblocks you can throw at them. No, an OS shouldn't cater to one specific type of person..which is one of the many reasons Linux has never made it into the hands of the "masses" and remains mostly in use for servers. Making an OS for smart people and another for "dumb" people would just be stupid and solve nothing.
100% is intimidating, but should always be the aim. Although, sometimes compromises are needed because security isn't all that matters.
Hopefully the people that are voting XP and Windows 7 are doing so because they believe that they can make it more secure through changes/3rd party software that isn't available on Windows 8. Not because they genuinely think it's more secure out of the box!
Honestly i think that these days Linux distros like Ubuntu and Mint are more "user friendly" than Windows 8... Linux is no longer only for "geeks" imo.
totally agree. all the codecs come pre-installed out of the box and the varied selection of apps installed and available makes it very noob friendly. Ubuntu and Mint have been as easy as Windows to install and use in my experience. an added advantage of Linux is the repositories, where the chances of getting a software with malware in it is very close to zero.
Ubuntu would be the choice of the masses if it weren't so dammed ugly. When you first download and open Ubuntu, the screen looks like something out of Dante's Inferno.....I think it scares a lot of people.
What do you mean by secure out of the box? Does it protect your data? Better backups? Less chance of an error? Easier recovery? Which one it is? Mrk
For me it look fine but it is quite confusing . . . im so used to Windows flexibility and interface that i don't think i would not last even a day with any Linux distro.
It has more options/tools (Smart Screen Filter OS wide, ELAM driver, that can protect me against threats -> this protects my data better than previous Windows OS versions. Windows 8 introduces many under the hood improvements in (let's say) BitLocker - the encryption technology which protects my data better than in Windows XP/Vista/7. Additionally, Trusted boot and litelly tons of under the hood improvements. Back up is the same as Windows 7, but Windows 8 introduces the function "Storage spaces" which protects data and is not present in previous Windows versions. Additionally, by default Windows 8 includes SkyDrive with gives 7 GB free space @ Microsoft. Yes. Statistics show that with each and every new version, errors such as BSOD appear less. Any new OS versions is supposted to be less errorful. Windows 8 introduces improvements of the previous known recovery methods. Additionally, it includes other options (not previously availbable in older Windows OS). Such improvement is "Refresh your PC without affecting your files". And others... Best regards!
Until you get error messages. Then have fun as an average user trying to figure that out, not being helped by the fact that Linux distros have this habit of completely screwed up file names
Thats just it- when you are used to using Windows, anything else just seems wrong somehow. It's awkward.
You are probably right, but I've never seen the statistics from any kind of survey/poll that you claim exist. Cheers, Nick