Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Plus when a new linux kernel is released, that is what it is... new
Looking at this recent exploit that has come to light...
Affected Versions....
NT 4 circa 1995?
Windows 2000 2000
Windows XP 2001
Windows 2003 2003
So the issue has existed for 8 years accross 4 platforms..
How much legacy code do they blindly copy between versions?
|
If it aint broke don't fix it... well until someone spots the flaw 8 years down the line
.
I get extremely concerned about the number of kernel updates with Linux (many security related, especially the ICMP flaw). This is the core of the operating system and should be solid and stable with no need to update on a regular basis. What's so cool about having a "new" kernel all the time? I update a lot of stuff on RedHat without worrying too much, but the kernel updates I investigate thoroghly just to see what's been changed.
That's what I like about the NT line of Windows. It's still good old solid NT kernel underneath that I can trust and each version builds on it's core stability. The bugs are all with the add-ons. Sure, they are considered "part" of the OS because Microsoft wrote them all (or at least bought the companies that did
). It's no different with Linux apart from who "owns" what. It's still a core kernel and OS and then other apps on top.
As a developer in a commercial environment, I hate open-source. It really slows down the development process and you end up fixing everyone elses bugs just to get things working, which ultimately costs the company more in man-hours. I've experienced this a lot and I'd much rather the company pays for a commercial product, thoroughly tested by professionals, with certification and decent QA (rather than testing by 1000s of 12 year olds who don't have huge salaries and a job at stake as their incentive to ensure quality