Some people have really lost it. :rolleyes:
Linux is susceptible to hacking, terrorists, etc???
What about Windows and Outlook Express whereby, some high school kid in his basement in Wichita can create a virus that will spread itself worldwide through E-Mail? MicroSoft is notorious for being vulnerable to hackers.
Sounds like someone’s worried about losing their market share.
Hmmmm… a few days ago, the Globe supplement Report on Business had a focus on Linux. Microsoft had a paid ad in there in which they implied that Linux systems were a security problem because of the Open Source approach meant that anyone (presumably bad guys) could go over the source and identify weaknesses.
Of course, in practice, Linux is more secure because anyone can go over the source and identify weaknesses. Security holes get closed because you’ve got an unpaid army of nerds reporting even the most remote of threats.
Microsoft’s propriety protection model means that the only people who get to look at the source are the finite number of monkeys that are paid to debug it – and the malicious twats who steal it off MS “secure” servers, in order to identify and exploit security holes.
You know people like Gartner and others that actually study and compare the o/s don’t make such claims. Actually what they say is that all o/s has holes. You can even spend a few minutes on google and read up yourself, with such stats has number of vulnerabilities exposed and time to release a patch. Might actually be interesting reading if you’re really curious…
Wow… the anti-Microsoft bigots can’t take the crap they’re so fond of dishing out, can they?
The fact is, all OS’s have security holes. Just as it’s true that no non-trivial program is ever completely bug-free, no OS is completely secure. Anyone who remembers the pre-Windows era must remember the vast number of exploits that Unix had; sendmail was (and still is, to some extent) a laughable mess of security holes for instance.
Frankly, if I was creating an embedded device for which security was paramount, I sure as hell wouldn’t use Linux (although I’d probably use it before Windows). I’d use a lesser known, or even home-grown, OS that had only the bare minimum of features I needed.
And you’re surprised why a vendor of a competing operating system would deride the choice of Linux for embedded systems? How naive do you have to be for that?