Open source doesn't make software safer
There is this ludicrous paradigm among the technorati that just because a piece of software is developed collaboratively and by enthusiasts with source code shared freely on the web, that automatically makes it more secure and less buggy.
"When everyone can look at your code," runs the argument, "flaws get found more quickly and patches get released almost immediately."
But although everyone can look at open source code, in practice, the only people who do are those involved in developing the software and those trying to create malware that exploits it.
This is exactly the same situation that applies to closed source software, except that it is somewhat harder for the hackers to get their copy of the code.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 1191 reads
- PDF version
More in Tux Machines
- Highlights
- Front Page
- Latest Headlines
- Archive
- Recent comments
- All-Time Popular Stories
- Hot Topics
- New Members
digiKam 7.7.0 is releasedAfter three months of active maintenance and another bug triage, the digiKam team is proud to present version 7.7.0 of its open source digital photo manager. See below the list of most important features coming with this release. |
Dilution and Misuse of the "Linux" Brand
|
Samsung, Red Hat to Work on Linux Drivers for Future TechThe metaverse is expected to uproot system design as we know it, and Samsung is one of many hardware vendors re-imagining data center infrastructure in preparation for a parallel 3D world. Samsung is working on new memory technologies that provide faster bandwidth inside hardware for data to travel between CPUs, storage and other computing resources. The company also announced it was partnering with Red Hat to ensure these technologies have Linux compatibility. |
today's howtos
|
Another non article
Where this article fails bigtime is it's disregard for reality.
Windows = millions of malware and viruses
Linux = virtually none, and those holes are quickly patched.
So practical reality show his argument is rubbish. Also the assertion that malware attacks Microsoft because it is an attack on "the man" is also spurious. Most modern virus and malware writers are criminals and in it for the money, they do not care who or what company they target, only results.
It is also handy that Linux is inherently more secure by design and sensible Linux people get their software from a repository, not some dodgy warez site or bittorrent.
GregE
Melbourne, Australia