4 ms·
The difference, to play da, is that both of your points get solved with greater transparency. Is Linux more secure because everyone (quiet, Gentoo crowd) audit
by ethbro 11y ago
The difference, to play da, is that both of your points get solved with greater transparency.
Is Linux more secure because everyone (quiet, Gentoo crowd) audits their own source? No, it's more secure because:
Anyone can choose to audit the source with minimal roadblocks.
Anyone who thinks they've found an issue can trumpet it from the rooftops.
Together, this means that even though I might not line-by-line audit my system, I can (with varying levels of paranoia / assurance) obtain a system that I have confidence others have audited. And furthermore, if there are issues found in the future then I can be reasonably sure of hearing about them.
Neither of these benefits is possible with closed source embedded systems.
(Or, from article "Ninety-nine percent of the buyers would never read anything. But out of the 11 million people whose car was cheating, one of them would have found it,” he said. “And Volkswagen would have been caught in 2009, not 2015.”)
- nmrm2 11y ago> both of your points get solved with greater transparency My first point was exactly that transparency isn't a solution, even theoretically. There's no such thing as perfect knowledge when the questions you're asking are undecidable. My second point was that even if transparency is a solution theoretically, it's demonstrably not a solution historically. People (including customers not subject to CYA-induced stupidity) choose insecure proprietary systems over secure open source systems all the time.