I mean Linus did kick out some russians based on US sanctions, but technically nobody owns Linux. You can use a distro from the EU, and if USA did pressure Linus, people could fork the kernel in another country. As well as it being open source where US pull requests could be analyzed for backdoors
First one I agreed he bowed to pressure. 2nd one, not sure which one you mean. Every software has vulnerabilities yet to be discovered, researchers work hard to breakstuff. Windows had tons that researchers disclosed to them and they refused to fix, until researchers started issuing the vulners daily (and said they had 100s more they could release all year).
Open Source means we can check and fix once discovered, good luck getting a for profit corporation to act. Re: the recent national defense issue with MS not disclosing vulnerabilities because they didtn want to kill their sales.
Now you are changing words or read it too quick. I never said I. We as in anybody. Again another strawman second sentence.
How do you think the researcher found the vulner for xz. He noticean tiny slow down and started scrutinizing code. Closed source is a false sense of security by obscurity. Open source means anyone can scrutinize the code.
Also we deal with enough proprietary software at work to get inside TSBs. Much of proprietary code also is built on open source pieces, so if your troll argument is opensource is bad, then proprietary is also bad on top of that.
You are aware that, unlike (e.g.) OpenBSD, Linux is (legally) an American product, right?
I mean Linus did kick out some russians based on US sanctions, but technically nobody owns Linux. You can use a distro from the EU, and if USA did pressure Linus, people could fork the kernel in another country. As well as it being open source where US pull requests could be analyzed for backdoors
How exactly is that better than Windows?
You are aware that there was a critical security hole in X for almost three decades, right?
First one I agreed he bowed to pressure. 2nd one, not sure which one you mean. Every software has vulnerabilities yet to be discovered, researchers work hard to breakstuff. Windows had tons that researchers disclosed to them and they refused to fix, until researchers started issuing the vulners daily (and said they had 100s more they could release all year). Open Source means we can check and fix once discovered, good luck getting a for profit corporation to act. Re: the recent national defense issue with MS not disclosing vulnerabilities because they didtn want to kill their sales.
How many % of your operating system’s source code have you 1) read and 2) understood?
That’s a strawman if I ever saw one
It’s not a strawman. You said “but I can read the source code!”. Do you? Because if you don’t, it doesn’t really matter, right?
Now you are changing words or read it too quick. I never said I. We as in anybody. Again another strawman second sentence. How do you think the researcher found the vulner for xz. He noticean tiny slow down and started scrutinizing code. Closed source is a false sense of security by obscurity. Open source means anyone can scrutinize the code.
Also we deal with enough proprietary software at work to get inside TSBs. Much of proprietary code also is built on open source pieces, so if your troll argument is opensource is bad, then proprietary is also bad on top of that.