Linux is very insecure. Maybe you have not been following the news lately.
He places functionality over security, and assumes security will just 'happen' with code quality. I tend to disagree - but I am typing this from a Linux box, not an OpenBSD box. Because Linux is more functional as a desktop - the irony there isn't lost on me.
Or, improved BSD, and avoided all that GPL stuff if they wanted.
Let's just call it Another Missed Opportunity for the Big Blue. :)
I was really disappointed in how Apple treated BSD, but I am stupid and naive. I would have expected that from IBM though.
Would you go into more detail here? The BSD license is very liberal. That's no excuse for bad behavior, but I'm unfamiliar with bad actions on Apple's part wrt BSD, which I gather there were given your phrasing.
I don't know enough about the levels of contribution to either to make a strong comparison, and I'm more than willing to grant IBM and Red Hat make much larger contributions to Linux than Apple does to FreeBSD. And I sympathize with the desire to have more contributions. The "how Apple treated BSD" phrasing sounds like there is more active bad treatment rather than not contributing enough. Maybe the hiring of Jordan Hubbard is considered active bad treatment? (Honest question)
[0]: https://opensource.apple.com
[1]: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_OS_X_Without_...
That's Clang/LLVM compiler that gets them off GCC's GPL codebase. It also allows them to keep more extensions proprietary if they choose. It's been beneficial to the OSS community but I'd say it's barely altruistic. An exception rather than the rule.
" The "how Apple treated BSD" phrasing sounds like there is more active bad treatment rather than not contributing enough"
Helps to remember that it's how a lack of contributions is commonly phrased. Freeloading is probably the dominant model for both users and companies far as FOSS. It's just how they word the gripe. I agree they should probably use clearer phrasing for others not deep into this subject matter.
However, they used to really flaunt their BSD roots on OSX, but seem to do very little to give back in the form of code, money, or even PR for that matter.
Here's an example of that: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Da...
But now they've even removed any mention of this, and allowed projects like OpenDarwin and such to just plain die. I think it's pretty poor behavior from a company that's SO involved in intellectual property rights to just take something as valuable as a complete kernel and userland (not GUI) and then just sweep it under the carpet because no laws require them to do otherwise.
Puts a really bad taste in my mouth to see such important work treated like that. I'd have expected it from IBM, but not from Apple.
Kylin, for others googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylin_(operating_system)
It since switched to a Linux base and today powers Tianhe-1 and 2.
There is Wayland which aims to solve these security aspects mentioned in the blog post, it will be shipping by default in the next Fedora release IIRC.
OSX is right behind it, with a culture of laxness that undoes most of the benefits the designers tried to give them.
Not quite as bad, but still pretty weak.
This could either mean that Windows 10 has become more secure than its most popular competitors, or that researchers hadn't invested enough resources to audit Windows 10 properly.
Taking into account the results from previous years and previous versions (like 8.1), my personal conclusion is that Windows has actually become more secure.
[1] https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2016
The stark contrast is in the privilege escalation vulnerabilities from the Windows side vs the other categories on the Linux side.
I would assume that many persons prefer a server to go down, corrupt its data and leak it, rather than get compromised. The fine print is that the leaked data may contain information to compromise the server[1].