"No, Linux have more vulns because security isn't such a big priority (with the myth that's its more secure) and because there's more prestige in getting your features in than there is in contributing work-hours for testing."
How can you, with serious face, make a claim that security is not a big priority in Linux development and testing? It is one of the two largest ones - the other one being stability (and these two also go hand by hand). *nix systems are secure because exactly of security being a top priority. Anything else than that and stability comes after.
"No, clearly it is *not* working. They have double the amounts of security bugs (a.k.a. vulnerabilities) than Vista. Now go and make fun of Vista again."
On highly complex projects like OS a high number of vulns is to be expected. It's the number of vulns found that proves "eye on code" to work and number of fixes that proves security being of high priority.
The argument of code being visible to others to be good for security is in fact proved by higher number of *found* vulns than closed source competitors.
Discussion on:
Message 12 of 1
IBM Sponsored Resources
Resources from our Sponsor
- Oracle Exadata vs IBM: Netezza Compared
- Forrester TEI Report
- CIA Whitepaper
- Harnessing the Power of Advanced Analytics
- Tapping into Unleashed Business Potential with Advanced Analytics
- Unlock Analytic Performance with Revolution R for Enterprise and IBM: Netezza Data Warehouse Appliance
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
