Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Security Showdown: Back & Forth

Filed under
Linux
Microsoft
Security

Battles continue today in the M$ security war. Yesterday news began circulating that M$ Windows2003 server was found to be more secure than Redhat Enterprise. I'm skeptical until details of the study are released, as apparently they used the criteria of number of vulnerabilities reported and length of time before a patch was released for said vulnerabilities. However on the flip-side, former White House adviser Richard Clarke says during an interview at the same RSA computer security conference in San Francisco, he doesn't "know why anybody would buy from them" given their track record. He continues to offer evidence of apathy of M$ in the area of security and warns "industry and government need to pay greater attention to the risk of cyberterrorism." I guess this security topic will be bouncing back and forth for quite a while to come.

More in Tux Machines

Debian-Based Distribution Updated With KDE 3.5 Forked Desktop

Q4OS 1.2 "Orion" is the new release that is re-based on Debian Jessie, focused on shipping its own desktop utilities and customizations, and designed to run on both old and new hardware. Read more

Atom Shell is now Electron

Atom Shell is now called Electron. You can learn more about Electron and what people are building with it at its new home electron.atom.io. Read more Also: C++ Daddy Bjarne Stroustrup outlines directions for v17

A Fedora 22 beta walk-through

The new Fedora, with its GNOME 3.16 interface, is an interesting, powerful Linux desktop. Read more Also: Web software center for Fedora Red Hat's Cross-Selling and Product Development Will Power Long-Term Growth Red Hat Updates Open Source Developer and Admin Tools

Unix and Personal Computers: Reinterpreting the Origins of Linux

So, to sum up: What Linus Torvalds, along with plenty of other hackers in the 1980s and early 1990s, wanted was a Unix-like operating system that was free to use on the affordable personal computers they owned. Access to source code was not the issue, because that was already available—through platforms such as Minix or, if they really had cash to shell out, by obtaining a source license for AT&T Unix. Therefore, the notion that early Linux programmers were motivated primarily by the ideology that software source code should be open because that is a better way to write it, or because it is simply the right thing to do, is false. Read more Also: Anti-Systemd People