Quote:
Originally posted by mpedrummer2
OK, don't kill me, because I don't use Linux, but I have a point here.
Microsoft, while of course inherently evil  has a few things in its favor over the open source community, and I think as the years go by, we'll see this.
The biggest one. Everyone says how much more secure Linux is than Windows.
BULLSHIT.
There's just as many holes, it's just that not too many people have bothered to exploit them yet. Sooner or later, though, virus writers are going to get bored with Windows, and start targeting Linux, especially as it becomes more and more prolific for webservers.
Microsoft has a multi-million dollar a year programming team than can (and has) churn out patches to fix vunerabilities within hours of the problem being identified. The open source community really doesn't have this. Sure, Mandrake and Suse etc have their own programmers who can make patches, but not necessarily with the speed that MS can.
Dunno...I forsee this being a problem for Linux peeps, someday.
MPEDrummer
|
When people say that Linux is more secure than Windows, it's not to mean that Linux doesn't have its security holes. This is open data - unlike Windows, the known security issues are fully disclosed to the public.
The difference comes in exactly what you takled about - only thing is your assessment was incorrect. The Opes Source nature of Linux is what makes it more secure because, instead of waiting for MS to get off their butt and make a patch to the security hole, anyone can do so in Linux. Because of this, most security issues are fixed faster in Linux than in Windows - not giving them enough time to be fully exploited.