InfoWorld: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux: November 11, 2003: By Kieren McCarthy, Techworld.com: Security

InfoWorld: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux: November 11, 2003: By Kieren McCarthy, Techworld.com: Security: "In a sign that the inroads made by the Open Source community are starting to rattle the software giant, Microsoft has hired several analysts to review how fast holes are patched in the open source software and is expected to announce that Windows compares favorably.

The strategy, called 'Days of Risk,' measures the number of days it takes programmers to release a public patch after a vulnerability is revealed. While high-profile holes in Linux and associated software tend to be swiftly dealt with, less prominent problems -- which could be just as potentially damaging -- can take weeks or even months to appear."

Well, at least people will know about Linux. Then they can ask someone with a less biased opinion about the relative security vs. Microsoft.

Here's the question. Which is more secure?

System A: One entity controls and owns all code. Only that entity can see it. You give up other rights to use it. You can't fix it even if you know how.

System B: One entity controls all code. No one owns it (in the physical sense). Anyone can see the code. You give up rights to use it, and are only required to share fixes if you distrbute the code. Everyone can fix it, if they convince the 'entity' their fix works.

O.k. that's a pathetic attempt to simplify it. Read the Cathedral and the Bazaar instead.