Comment Re:I find such lack of security... (Score 1) 317
Exactly how many eyes have analyzed Linux "relentlessly?"
I have worked with/for a number of companies that build both Linux and Windows versions of utility software. With all the gurus on the Linux team zealously evangelizing the intense scrutiny Linux comes under, none had ever done more than peek under the hood when they needed an answer to a specific "how does this work" question.
The ability to "peek under the hood" comes in very handy and makes software development a lot easier sometimes. But as for "relentless analysis," I haven't seen it or ever known anyone who has seen it. The constant influx of Linux security flaws (not making a comparison to Window$, just absolute numbers) indicates that we have a ways to go.
Linux may well be more secure. But prove it. I don't buy arguments based on "everyone knows that" or "it stands to reason that there is more scrutiny." The modern myth is that there are millions of developers pouring over Linux source code everyday and when a bug is found, they pool their collective resources and fix the bug in mere minutes. They then ensure that all worldwide Linux distributions are patched before there is an opportunity for an exploit.
Given the fact that half of the software developers in the world work for Micro$oft and the other half write software for Windows (with the remainder divided up evenly between the remaining hundred and some odd platforms), it may well be argued that there is more "relentless" scrutiny on that platform...
(By the way, I don't have specific numbers on how many software developers work at Microsoft, but I think "everyone knows" that this is an accurate estimate.)
I have worked with/for a number of companies that build both Linux and Windows versions of utility software. With all the gurus on the Linux team zealously evangelizing the intense scrutiny Linux comes under, none had ever done more than peek under the hood when they needed an answer to a specific "how does this work" question.
The ability to "peek under the hood" comes in very handy and makes software development a lot easier sometimes. But as for "relentless analysis," I haven't seen it or ever known anyone who has seen it. The constant influx of Linux security flaws (not making a comparison to Window$, just absolute numbers) indicates that we have a ways to go.
Linux may well be more secure. But prove it. I don't buy arguments based on "everyone knows that" or "it stands to reason that there is more scrutiny." The modern myth is that there are millions of developers pouring over Linux source code everyday and when a bug is found, they pool their collective resources and fix the bug in mere minutes. They then ensure that all worldwide Linux distributions are patched before there is an opportunity for an exploit.
Given the fact that half of the software developers in the world work for Micro$oft and the other half write software for Windows (with the remainder divided up evenly between the remaining hundred and some odd platforms), it may well be argued that there is more "relentless" scrutiny on that platform...
(By the way, I don't have specific numbers on how many software developers work at Microsoft, but I think "everyone knows" that this is an accurate estimate.)
