|
|
|
|
|
by vlovich123
476 days ago
|
|
Because the attack surface is smaller and more difficult to extract value out of. I think it’s been shown time and time again the more motivated your attacker the more difficult it is to defend and very visible popular platforms see more attacks. NPM and MS represent drastically larger platforms. |
|
No, the reason Linux is safe and modern distributors aren't is the "packaging" step. Debian volunteers package software that they understand to be high quality via existing community consensus. You can't just show up to Fedora and say "ship my junkware app", you need to convince the existing community that your stuff doesn't suck.
And that's worked extremely well for decades now, going all the way back to 2BSD being shipped above V7 Unix. The reason MS and NPM et. al. abandoned it isn't just pure experience[2]. They don't want to wait for their repos to fill with good software, they want all the software in it now so that they don't get beaten by whoever their competitors are.
And this is the inevitable result. If you allow anyone to distribute software to your users then you allow everyone to distribute software to your users. And everyone includes a lot of bad people.
[1] With vastly more capability! The distro ships everything from firmware blobs and kernel drivers up through browser glitz and desktop customization. Talk about "attack surface"!