The situation is relatively straightforward, though people with biases (&/ desire to just argue &/ trolls) complicate it over and over again:
UNIX, and specifically Linux as a descendant, was evolved with very sensible and fairly solid security models (in multiple ways - including balancing simplicity [making it easier for users to specify and have that specification actually match their intention] against flexibility / rigor). Furthermore, from early days, there were heated substantial arguments about security vs. usability.
When I was younger, I had a more "Theo de Raadt" POV - it should be way more secure. But, I think that the arguments people like Torvalds made about "enough trouble getting adoption AT ALL", in essence, were better arguments.
Linux has been pretty good through the years. Far from perfect, but a good enough mixture in terms of balancing "getting sh1t done" against "keeping people safe".
Windows is a mess. It's always been a mess (though, to be fair, it DID really improve between 2000 and 2010, but only to the point sort of REQUIRED to continue to be commercially viable). The incentives etc. are all different. The M$ model is always "make things as easy as possible to just start using" and "try to keep everyone chained to the platform, in part through the otherwise almost altruistic method of never breaking ancient software".
There is no question that security - in terms of what is best for the user - is not the key principle / drive, there. You can judge that however you like, or not at all - it doesn't implicitly mean Windows is "worse", because that always depends on what is "important" ... what perspective you're looking at it from.
But, I certainly find that model ugly and unfortunate, personally.
The situation is relatively straightforward, though people with biases (&/ desire to just argue &/ trolls) complicate it over and over again:
UNIX, and specifically Linux as a descendant, was evolved with very sensible and fairly solid security models (in multiple ways - including balancing simplicity [making it easier for users to specify and have that specification actually match their intention] against flexibility / rigor). Furthermore, from early days, there were heated substantial arguments about security vs. usability.
When I was younger, I had a more "Theo de Raadt" POV - it should be way more secure. But, I think that the arguments people like Torvalds made about "enough trouble getting adoption AT ALL", in essence, were better arguments.
Linux has been pretty good through the years. Far from perfect, but a good enough mixture in terms of balancing "getting sh1t done" against "keeping people safe".
Windows is a mess. It's always been a mess (though, to be fair, it DID really improve between 2000 and 2010, but only to the point sort of REQUIRED to continue to be commercially viable). The incentives etc. are all different. The M$ model is always "make things as easy as possible to just start using" and "try to keep everyone chained to the platform, in part through the otherwise almost altruistic method of never breaking ancient software".
There is no question that security - in terms of what is best for the user - is not the key principle / drive, there. You can judge that however you like, or not at all - it doesn't implicitly mean Windows is "worse", because that always depends on what is "important" ... what perspective you're looking at it from.
But, I certainly find that model ugly and unfortunate, personally.