Subscribe by Email
Every time some open source software, like Firefox or Linux, has an exploitable security hole, lots of people scream “see, it’s insecure too! it’s no better than IE / Windows!”.
That has always sounded weird to me. Windows or IE have had dozens, maybe hundreds of holes and exploits, and yet, when Linux or Firefox have one, they’re “just as insecure”?!?
Is this thing binary? All or nothing? No holes = secure; one hole = as insecure as a hundred holes?
Is open source software so bad, and do you resent it so much, that you’re only using it because of its absolutely perfect security, and when you find out that it’s not perfect after all, you leave it and crawl back to IE or Windows?
If so, here’s a tip for you: “much better” doesn’t equal “perfect”. (oh, and IE is pure garbage for reasons other than security, too 
)
Fine, Firefox just had one. Not really “exploited”, since it’s already been patched, but never mind that. So what? How many IE holes have there been? How many PCs are full of spyware, viruses, and/or sending thousands of spam emails a day because of IE holes?
Can Firefox even begin to compare to that? I don’t think so. It’s at least dozens of really bad exploits (not to mention the “less than really bad” ones) behind.
Related posts:
