|
|
|
|
|
|
by ry_ry
3321 days ago
|
|
|
If Windows were open-source, would the situation have been any different? Would organisations with very conservative attitudes to upgrade paths or a requirement to run an older OS version have suddenly been patching nightly? Would the exploits used have been identified and patched prior to their malicious deployment? Would organisations with a vested interest in stockpiling exploits have elected to immediately notify projects' maintainers? The answer to these swings wildly between 'maybe' and 'probably not', so the eventual endpoint is likely largely the same. It's a compound issue brought about by a chain of decisions made by disparate organisations, and using it as a stick to beat Microsoft or proprietary vendors in general with is missing a very important point - Security is the responsibility of everybody involved, from vendors and the government, all the way down through to the people innocently opening infected attachments. |
|
|
That has been the case for over a decade, and it has been getting worse over time.
The reason I recommend a free operating system is not because you are allowed to read the source (although that is a bonus), it is because you have the freedom to control your operating system.
The problem with Windows is that "updates" are done in the most inconvenient way possible, and with no control by the user. They often include changes that the user does not want bundled in with security patches. To contrast, a free operating system gives you options (liberty). If I just want an old stable version of Debian with security patches, I can get it.
The issue here stems from using proprietary software in the first place. Proprietary software is controlled by the company, not the user.