Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   (And before anyone says anything, no, Windows is not better. Windows is
> year after year always at the top of the list of most security flaws found
> during the year.)

True, but the superiority of Linux crumbles in my eyes, if the responsible
people brush aside security holes that easily. I always had expected the Linux
community to have a basic mentality of "oops, right, our mistake; we'll fix
that of course", or at least "oops, right, this is problematic; we'll work
around that of course". But now they show that they, too, are more like "well,
that's not our fault; we won't fix it".

And knowing (through obvious proof) that the Linux kernel code isn't checked
with professional tools (or rather, probably is, but the results seem to be
brushed off and not taken seriously unless proven to be exploitable) doesn't
convince me of Linux' alleged superior security either.

I'm not saying "they're worse than Microsoft" - all I'm saying is "they're no
better".

Which is to say, "they're worse than what they claim and are percieved to
be". And as we all know, overestimating a system's security is a bad thing. If
you run two systems which are equally secure from a technical point of view but
one is percieved as more secure, that one will actually pose the higher security
threat.

(And what I'm also saying is that I think the commercial approach is
*potentially* better suited to produce secure software.)

Post a reply to this message