Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> a strong history of not prioritizing security or even considering it to be a legitimate goal

?

Did you mean the Windows kernel?

Linux has had incredible focus on security. SELinux being a prime example.



No, Windows has by far more investment into security and a far better culture. Linux has a multiple-decades-long history of saying that security is not important and has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to modernity.

SELinux is just an LSM built decades ago, I wouldn't say that somehow proves that upstream cares about security.


Probably a mischaracterization of Linux on the basis of Linus's infamous comment on OpenBSD devs [1].

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/296


Wow, excellent stuff.

> To me, security is important. But it's no less important than everything else that is also important!

> - Linus


With all due respect, Linus could learn some manners:

> I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of...

Apart from that, if there is no test coverage it is difficult to talk about security or reliability (I don't know myself if there are tests and how good they are, I'm just assuming GGGP is right).


> Linus could learn some manners

He acknowledged that and did so, years ago.


I assume this was after the linked post then, and it's good to hear that. The problem is that these posts stay online for a loooong time. Thanks for answering.


The linked post was literally from 2008


> With all due respect, Linus could learn some manners

He himself wouldn't disagree with that.


Actually, not really, one has to look for Android, if wanting a Linux kernel with all the proper security knobs actually turned on and configured appropriately.

In an OS where Linux kernel is actually an implementation detail in what concerns userspace.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: