Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
E-mail Print r 1   · Read More · 71 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 358762
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
the question has been answered already
by cycoj on Thu 16th Apr 2009 01:45 UTC
Member since:

There have been security holes in Linux distributions before. Usually it's the distribution being blamed. However the loudest shouting is usually coming from Windows users saying: "Linux is not really secure!", "Hobbiest software" ... Most Linux users actually patch the hole and get on with live. That does not mean that people are not held accountable for their action, if security bugs would pop up a lot in one distro only I'd just switch and so would many others. The other thing is that I don't really blame Microsoft for their current efforts on security, what I blame them for is for creating an environment where people are totally ignorant of security in the first place. That's why they don't update ... MS software did treat security very lax for many years and this has reflected on its users and created the situation we currently have. So yes users are to blame, but MS is also to blame for conditioning their users like this.


Reply Score: 1