Peter Brawley
peter.brawley at earthlink.net
Fri Dec 13 22:09:35 CST 2013
On 2013-12-13 7:49 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote: > Hi All: > > According to the Linux Foundation executive director: > > http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/26/linux-chief-open-source-is-safer-and-linux-is-more-secure-than-any-other-os-exclusive/ > > Is this assumption right or wrong? "The whole world can see every line of code in Linux. This is one of the reasons Linux is more secure than other operating systems and why open-source software overall is a safer than closed software. The transparency of the code ensures it's secure." "It's very difficult to insert something into the kernel that would violate privacy and freedom without thousands of developers noticing. The nature of Linux is that it's self-policing." It's not a deductive truth, but it's a plausible empirical claim that fits what we see year after year. Seems to me with respect to Windows there's a mirror image claim. Not only does M$oft have just one building full of debuggers, as opposed to OSS software having a worldful; Windows software is designed such that everything can connect intimately to everything else---if you can get past M$oft eyes, you may be home-free to do widespread mischief. PB > > Jim > _______________________________________________ > dba-Tech mailing list > dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >