Linux Vs Windows in security

[cj]

Cesar Augusto Suarez wrote:
> Hi.
> I have a doubt about it:
> I know that one of the bigest critics to windows is about security  in the s.o. instad Linux who has fame of very secure s.o.
>
> However, i know that windows (same that linux) save the pass in a hidden file, if we can locate that file, just edit and voila¡ and the last is about Vista, with the vista cd i can have root access to the system if i have physical access to it
>
> In linux, i´ve seeing thats the same, with the live cd, if we have physical access to the pc, we can change root access just by typing a new pass.
>
> Then, where is  really the security ?
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Correo Yahoo!
> Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
> Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/ 
>
>   
IMO, i think that some people take the linux security out of proportion. 
some people think that linux is hack-proof, that you cant hack a linux 
system even with out added security features (such as firewall and 
antivirus). And in some cases its true. Linux is more secure then 
windows because the linux community actually listens and fixes the 
reported holes in linux.

But, IMO, saying that linux is completely hack-proof is  like saying the 
titanic is unsinkable, yet look what happened to the titanic. Im not 
comparing linux to the titanic and im not trying to say that windows is 
better then linux either (and its not), its just saying that linux is 
not 100% hack proof, there are ways that a hacker can break into a linux 
system (although its getting increasingly harder and harder as time goes 
by). But im sure that someday, as technology and computers progress, 
linux will be hack-proof more then it is right now

--cj