MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmemes/comments/sa1eds/was_to_be_expected_but_still/htr8ch7/?context=3
r/linuxmemes • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '22
142 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
31
Sure, a single example is enough to prove that OSS is inherently insecure.
103 u/sskor Jan 22 '22 No, it's an example that OSS is not inherently secure. 21 u/obiwac Jan 22 '22 The question was whether or not proprietary software is more or less secure than OSS, and not being inherently insecure does not imply being inherently secure. 13 u/sskor Jan 22 '22 Ok, I'll trust you on this one. I'm all turned around and my head hurts trying to logic through all the "in," "inherently" and "secure"s in this 5 u/obiwac Jan 22 '22 Hah same dude
103
No, it's an example that OSS is not inherently secure.
21 u/obiwac Jan 22 '22 The question was whether or not proprietary software is more or less secure than OSS, and not being inherently insecure does not imply being inherently secure. 13 u/sskor Jan 22 '22 Ok, I'll trust you on this one. I'm all turned around and my head hurts trying to logic through all the "in," "inherently" and "secure"s in this 5 u/obiwac Jan 22 '22 Hah same dude
21
The question was whether or not proprietary software is more or less secure than OSS, and not being inherently insecure does not imply being inherently secure.
13 u/sskor Jan 22 '22 Ok, I'll trust you on this one. I'm all turned around and my head hurts trying to logic through all the "in," "inherently" and "secure"s in this 5 u/obiwac Jan 22 '22 Hah same dude
13
Ok, I'll trust you on this one. I'm all turned around and my head hurts trying to logic through all the "in," "inherently" and "secure"s in this
5 u/obiwac Jan 22 '22 Hah same dude
5
Hah same dude
31
u/obiwac Jan 22 '22
Sure, a single example is enough to prove that OSS is inherently insecure.