Slashdot Mirror
Windows Developers Agree: Linux More Secure
theblackdeer writes "eWeek has an article up about an Evans Data Corp survey that the majority of Windows developers agree that linux is a more secure OS. "Linux scored high for innate security among respondents, more than two- thirds of whom 'use or target Windows with their code.' Indeed, only 23 percent of the developers were primarily Linux developers.""
What do they base this perception or opinion on? Actual roll-up-your-sleeves analysis or the "features list" on their distro's box? Its kinda vague.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
Where do people think OSX comes in on the security spectrum?
Is the lack of mainstream press about OSX exploits because of the smaller userbase, or are there just not exploits?
And if there are no exploits, is this because of, again, the smaller userbase or is OSX truly a hardened OS?
Dissertation on the uselessness of Linux zealots
A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux zealot.
What the Linux zealot is will appear evident to whoever has experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc. The Linux zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way) claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright" is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental point for world evolution.
But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and looks with suspicion (when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of them) those people who simply think differently from him.
But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to (even if this is the case), but because this question has been answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating system from all other ones. But this is not the case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the resource of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less. So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux zealot believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This means that the kernel and everything included in the operating system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and some additional software, are freely distributable, they should explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux Torvald enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet". Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free, same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a connection. If you ask a Linux zealot
When will people realise that security is not about products and operating systems. Security is a process that is ongoing and evolving.
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
I have often wondered why windows is less secure. Could it be that a larger installed base means more exposure to security issues?? (ie. popularity = more exploits?)
No, the problem with Windows is that just about any exploit allows for the running
of arbitrary code with full privileges (equivelent to rooting a Linux box).
With a real OS (Linux, BSD, etc), to get similar privileges, you need both
a exploit to gain access to a machine and some way of escalating your privilege.
There has historically been a fraction of exploits that granted root from the
start, but that fraction has become vanishingly small.
*sigh* back to work...
shhhhh! He's trying to get noticed by fox news.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
This summary, and the article it links to, both seem to paint the picture that there are two distinct sets of developers in the world, those that target Windows and those that target Linux (or other open source platforms). This is just simply misleading, as I don't think it's the case at all.
First of all, most people who write code for a living have little control over what target OS they are developing for. These things tend to be dictated by the business that the company is in, or their clients, or the decisions of upper management, or historical reasons, etc. Most developers write code for Windows at work because that's where most software development happens, not because that's really their choice.
And just because you code for Windows at work doesn't mean you don't use Linux or participate in open source development at home or in your free time.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that I'm not surprised at all that Windows developers thought Linux was more secure, as a lot of them probably have used Linux or use it at home in some form (such as for a firewall.) In other words, you can't just break software people up into "Windows people" and "Linux people" and expect the members of each set to view their target OS as more secure, more stable, etc. People develop software for Windows for lots of reasons -- "it's a day job", "that's what the client demanded", "it's just corporate policy", etc. I guess what I'm saying is that this article doesn't really prove much, other than the fact that a lot of people think Linux is secure, but we knew that much already. Or simply: "Sure I write code for Windows for $DAYJOB, but that doesn't mean I think Windows is secure, and I use FreeBSD for my firewall at home."
> With a real OS (Linux, BSD, etc)...
Damn, how foolish of me to assume that Windows was a real OS! I mean, it's only controlling my hardware, managing my files, and running my programs. I will delete it at once and install a real OS. This said "real OS" won't work with my hardware, won't be able to access my files, and won't run any of my programs, but at least the likelihood of someone breaking into my computer will be reduced from one in a billion to one in a gazillion!