and how do you know the others solutions
are really secure? Linux is going to get
the most eyes, critics, scrutiny on this
because is way more widely used ...
This is commonly known as the "given enough eyeballs" fallacy[1]. While it might help when more people have an opportunity to review security critical subsystems, a given OS' popularity certainly does not guarantee this. Heartbleed[2] is often cited as an exemplar for this very situation.1 - http://www.amazon.com/Facts-Fallacies-Software-Engineering-R...
[1] https://us-east.manta.joyent.com/bcantrill/public/ppwl-cantr...
Spender talks about it for a long time: https://grsecurity.net/~spender/interview_notes.txt
Linux developers fix security bugs in irresponsible ways, saying nothing about the attack vector or CVE's involved. Sometimes multiple vulnerabilities are addressed in the same patch, making hard to track the fix.
For more information see the exploit below: https://grsecurity.net/~spender/exploits/64bit_dos.c
The list of kernel vulnerabilities involving namespaces is bigger each day, as the paper shows, but the industry still uses "container" and "security" in the same quotes.