Mastodawn

My recent post about Linux monoculture being bad for security has now started generating responses from people saying other systems are insecure.

I... yes? Literally the point of the post. In the words of infosec professional Bob Dylan, everything is broken. Diversity is strength.

Show thread

vins 3d ago

@[email protected] Ain't no use talkin', Nothing's workin'

Show thread

Stefano Marinelli 3d ago

@rubenerd yes, I know that feeling. Every time I say using the BSDs is good to avoid monoculture, (some) people start shouting "but less eyes means less secure!"

Somehow, some think that adoption rate is proportional to the security.

I usually stop them saying that Windows is the most used desktop os, but, by far, the less secure.

Show thread

Phil Dennis-Jordan 2d ago

@stefano @rubenerd I assume these are the same people who seem to think that high “velocity” (i.e. rate of change in the code base) is unconditionally a good thing*…
(* It can be, depending on what you’re building and the maturity of the project. I’d argue that for an established OS it probably isn’t but what do I know.)

Show thread

John-Mark Gurney 1d ago

@rubenerd
Just reminds me of Verisign using two operating systems and using two different DNS servers for the TLDs that they run. That way if there's ever a bug in one of them, that the other servers can keep running. That is they run four unique pairs of software stacks.

Show thread

OCTADE 1d ago

Linux is not resistance against the system. Linux is the system.

Humanity could use a new operating system based on different principles besides the mainframe-kiosk model of Unix.

#Linux

Show thread

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)1d ago

@rubenerd

Mine had someone accuse me of being a Microsoft shill.