Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Feb 2007 21:54 UTC, submitted by hamster
Privacy, Security, Encryption For consumers looking to boost their computers' security, is Vista the way to go? Or can Linux provide greater protection from hacker attacks? In the face of viruses, worms or other breaches, the answer is obvious. "We don't need a survey or study to determine the answer. The answer is universal with those that actually manage these systems," said John Cherry of the OSDL Desktop Linux Working Group.
Thread beginning with comment 213721
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Old Code versus New
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 17th Feb 2007 07:34 UTC in reply to "Old Code versus New"
Member since:

Moot point. Linux is just a kernel. The NT kernel certainly wasn't rewritten for Vista. And most of the core OS components remain the same.

Gnome and KDE go through major changes every few years. Equivalently, Explorer and much of the graphics subsystem got ripped and replaced. There will be bugs. They will be fixed.

The thing that matters the most are security design flaws that are much harder to fix. These certainly are reduced by starting afresh on the design of some components.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Old Code versus New
by 2fargone on Sat 17th Feb 2007 11:48 in reply to "RE: Old Code versus New"
2fargone Member since:

When I said Linux I wasn't specifying the kernel. Few people today call the kernel 'Linux' and the distro stack 'GNU/Linux'. I try to use the common usage to avoid confusion but here it failed.

Now, it's to my understanding the NT kernel did have major rewrites to it, so much so they termed it NT6.0 instead of NT5.2. The way cpu's are handled, threading, processes, I/O, scheduling, memory management, security, file subsystems, task handling, etc. I mean, the list of changes is pretty significant to down right extensive. And the inclusion of DRM has added a new angle, not only in the kernel, but also in the video, audio, and networking stacks, which have had extensive changes as well.

You're right, KDE and Gnome have major changes every few years, but as it stands, they're pretty mature at the moment. Both haven't seen number releases for sometime now, just point releases. And what you said about Explorer just enforces what I was saying.

And for you last point, true enough. Starting afresh will mean they can code out some of their past mistakes, but it also means they could be coding in their future mistakes as well.

In the end, my point is the current crop of OS's are known, and Vista is unknown. So the only answer to the question is Linux and XP are definitely more secure than Vista. You can say Vista is more secure, but if you were an insurance company and there was a billion dollar policy riding on that certainty, which would you chose?

Edited 2007-02-17 11:51

Reply Parent Score: 4