> 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 >
(insert brainy formulae stuff that doesn't really pertain to the point, here) > > 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. It's an answer that doesn't really pertain to what I was speaking of. The question was "how come 44 % of the people think linux would be more insecure if it were more popular". This is true by common sense. If Linux were more popular, it would have more vulnerabilities found, and thus be more "insecure". Mac OS X is an excellent case model for this. Once the number of users kicked up, (Mac OS X software specific) vulnerabilities were found more and more frequently. One could easily argue that paragraph #1 is even more true for open source software, where the source code is publicly available for auditing. Which is/can be easier to audit than a debugger and binary code. I've done a bit of grepping for strcpy in my time. Still, I'd much rather go the open source route, personally. With open source, I KNOW within my abilities, whether a piece of software is reasonably secure or not. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
