Re: Woohooo! Dell + Linux
Jim Hyslop <email@example.com> wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > Jim Hyslop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>attacks against Linux. Linux may be a much more robust and secure
> >>system than Windows, but there are probably still security holes
> >>lurking that nobody (at least, no honest person) has yet discovered
> >>and patched.
> > This is Microsoft FUD.
> Hey, watch where you sling your insults there, buddy! :-)
I think it sounded harsher than it was meant. Sorry for that.
> Seriously, though, it's not FUD to point out that no system can
> possibly be perfect. That's all I was saying.
And I never refuted that.
> If I had immediately followed with some outrageous claim that Windows
> is better and has fewer security holes because <insert some stupid
> reason>, *THEN* you could accuse me of spreading FUD.
> > Think about Apache, (by far) the most widely
> > used web server, but its resistance to attacks has not decreased.
> That's not what I was getting at. As the popularity of Linux
> increases, so will the number of attackers looking for
> vulnerabilities. As good as it is, Linux (or any software package,
> for that matter) is not perfect. The more attackers there are, the
> greater the likelihood that previously unknown exploits will be
> discovered. This is completely independent of the software's
> resistance to attack.
But the example of Apache demonstrates that this is a non-issue. And
it's not me saying this. Have a look at
and the entire report referenced there.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.