Quote:
|
Originally Posted by farnold
Mate, but a kernal without a thought-through security concept is still like a house without a front-door.
|
I hate to break this to you, but
all kernels on the market have had average security track records. Linux's is pretty comparable to others.
Quote:
|
Yep, I am quite biased against Linux. For me the believe that someone provides the core component as a free thing is just misleading.
|
Have you used and/or deployed Linux before reaching this conclusion? I have deployed both Linux and Windows, and the kernels in both are pretty damn stable. The attraction of an open-source solution is customization -- while you can get a XP Embedded or CE kernel, Linux remains attractive due to licensing fees and/or the huge development community that's sprung around the simple fact that they can look at the source.
To me, the attraction of a CE or XP Embedded solution is the "completeness" of the package -- a vendor that wants to get to market quickly buys a solution that works out of the box, a la Windows Mobile. Linux in Smartphones, however, needs far more customization at this point. To some vendors, that's exactly what they want.
You might want to think about this from the opposite perspective before being so conclusive. By being open, Linux is prone to far more security audits from researchers and the like who can easily get their hands on it than a closed-source commercial kernel. Just saying "because it's free" is really missing the point.
Quote:
|
Isn't all future oriented invention rather based on the progressive idea to increase revenue instead?
|
No. And besides, lots of companies are making money on Linux...
--janak