Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>   Then the answer is rather simple, isn't it: Don't use Linux.

No, the answer is rather, "Stop proclaiming that Linux' security is superior",
or "Get back to making Linux as secure as it is claimed to be".


> > And knowing (through obvious proof) that the Linux kernel code isn't checked
> > with professional tools
>
>   Define "professional tool".

In this sense, roughly speaking anything that a professional SW developing
entity would be willing(!) to pay more money for than the average hobbyist
would be willing to spend.

Note that free software might qualify in this sense, too.


> > I'm not saying "they're worse than Microsoft" - all I'm saying is "they're no
> > better".
>
>   That's BS. Basically every time a security hole is found in the linux kernel,
> a patch appears in a matter of *hours*.

Did you verify that assumption, or are you just repeating hearsay?

I see now a security hole which the top hats apparently weren't even *willing*
to fix, and flawed code which I assume would have been discovered earlier in a
commercial environment - so I'm throwing that hearsay overboard right now
because *that* seems to be BS.


>   How soon do you get security patches for Windows when security flaws are
> found? Certainly not within hours. At best within days, at worst within
> months (yes, it has happened).
>
>   So yes, the linux community *is* better in security than MS is.

By now I seriously doubt it.

Post a reply to this message