On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:30:38 -0700 (PDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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". > the thing about common sense is that is not always sensible, at this point in time the amount of critical expert scrutiny focused on Linux/FLOSS is about the same if not greater than that turned on specifically Windows operating Platforms.
thus the commmon sense answer is wrong because it equates two things that are in fact different, the number of people capable of discovering vulnerabilities is likely to remain constant, regardless of the number of people affected by those vulnerailities. The difference is in the exploitation of vulnerabilities; as the audience for a particular platform grows so does the incentive to exploit the vulnerabilities that do exist; this has nothing to do with the number or severity of those vulnerabilities. My gripe about this thread (and the CIO Magazine level survey that started it) is that it's founded on extremely sloppy thinking about what security is, and how it can be approached practically. -- 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
