On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:05:10 -0700 (PDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > how come 44 % of the people think linux would be more insecure if it > > were more popular??? > > more popular == more users > more users == more eyes > more eyes == more bad people > more bad people == more malware/exploits/worms/viruses > > Same with any other operating system
so we can quantify this as a ratio of exploits/users: e/u if at time t(now) e/u(windows) < e/u(linux) then still means vastly more exploits on windows but, if at t(now) e/u(windows) >= e/u(linux) then at t(future) linux will still be less vulnerable than windows even if u(linux)=u(windows) so this is not the answer you wanted to hear; even if windows were much more "secure" than linux it would still have more vulnerabilities. but this is all moot since there is no such thing as a a standard installation of either windows or linux, and most exploit counts mix application and core operating system exploits together. a strictly controlled scientific trial of different os's under different conditions won't tell us much about the real world implications. and just saying that more users = more exploits ignores the differences in underlying architecture that should make a difference. So what are fair tests of security? -- http://Zoneverte.org -- information explained Do you know what your IT infrastructure does? _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
