Linux security

[Daniel Carrera]

John L Fjellstad wrote:
> It's not a shock, and it doesn't matter. If a user doesn't discover the
> bug (as in it doesn't affect them) then the bug doesn't matter.

Theoretically yes. The point is that Microsoft has the wrong motivations 
for producing secure software. All their finnancial motivations point to 
creating insecure software quickly and fixing the bugs after they hit users.

> And it doesn't change Eric Dunbar's point in that as bugs get discovered
> and fixed, MS Windows will get better.

This would only be true if the feature-set of Windows was static, and it 
isn't. As new features are added, those will bring in new bugs to 
replace the ones that were fixed. This is true of any evolving piece of 
software (the only piece of software I know that is in use and isn't 
evolving is TeX).

Whether the system gets better over all is a factor of how quickly MS 
fixes old bugs and how quickly it introduces new ones through new 
features. And that will ultimately depend on the pressures and 
motivations acting upon the company.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   ...and starting today, all passwords must
    \/_/    contain letters, numbers, doodles, sign
    /       language and squirrel noises.