Open-Source VS. Windows
Hello. Just trying to inform the community here. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6083490.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed Thank you.
June 14th, 2006 5:36am

Any statment that "Open source is more secure. Period." is clearly flawed. While OSS can be run more securely than non OSS, but the opposite can also be true. The idea that OSS code is viewed by tens of thousands of eyes around the globe thus is more secure is patently absurd. Certainly there is (some) peer review with OSS, but it will vary by component. For example, just how many actual eyeballs are really looking at, say, the Linux kernel, or the latest WiFi Drivers? More importantly, how much testing is going on? Finally, rememer that security is made up of people, processes and technology. Just focusing on the technology kind of misses the point.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
June 19th, 2006 10:47am

And last year there were 3 times as many Linux security / patch issues as windows with no automated way of managing patches. This means that you have to touch each computer. Security is all about staying up with patches, Any operating system will have problems that goal is to update and fix. I like a solution where patches can be automated. For windows there is Live update, SMS, SUS, or WSUS, there is nothing like these services for Linux today. Especially if you have different module from different vendors as part of your distribution.
July 4th, 2006 5:44pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics