The Linux Security Myth

Message ID: 366999

Posted By: deepdistrust

Subject: The Linux Security Myth

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/interviews/4495/1/

".. whether or not I can do all the maintenance on my own car... if I have to go back and install a fix to the breaks every time it crashes and kills somebody, I don't view that as more secure. Secure means it doesn't need the patches. It's done right the same time. So the people who are saying that their code is more secure and it still needs patches every other week--whether it's proprietary or open source--are playing fast and loose with the semantics of what security means."

"Windows is awful, but well, so is Linux. Neither presents an environment that your average business user or government user or home user is able to install and use out of the box without worries. And in fact, if you look at your typical Linux distributions, with all of these tools and extra drivers and everything that's thrown on, a lot of that is programmed by people without training, without careful thought, and without careful design.

"That's not the argument for the kernel. The kernel is rather tightly controlled by a small group who do have expertise. "

This is published in 2002, but it applies so long as the Linux guys keep producing buggy programs that need patches on a regular basis.

This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license:

CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.