I admit his broad premise is correct: a FOSS OS or browser undoubtedly will have security vulnerabilities that unknown bad actors could exploit. That sorta comes with the territory of everybody being able to see how the digital sausage is made, so to speak. Where he (and a lot of security researchers) miss the mark, though, is failing to acknowledge that Windows and Chrome have intentional security issues, and we know the names of the bad actors already: Microsoft and Google.
I'll gladly accept the risk of somebody exploiting an oversight in whatever branch of the infinite branches of Linux I choose to install, than be guaranteed to surrender my personal data for free to some billionaires.
All the security features that he lists that are either missing or poorly implemented in Linux could be explained by the lack of a multi trillion dollar company developing Linux for profit
From what I've seen, security people tend to separate "privacy" from "security." Probably because the best security seems to always come at the expense of privacy, because profit. I agree with them that there is a massive trust difference that everyone can expect to have between Big Tech and Some Hacker, and it is basically that Big Tech is not going to steal your credit card info. It's not perfect and they might develop a surveillance tool that gets used by a hacker (and definitely the feds), but them seeing your most sensitive data is not much of a financial risk.
I would think that using Chromium for purchases and banking is safe enough for most people
That's a fair point. I'm sticking to my guns on Firefox, but other folks' risk assessments may come up differently than mine—and that's fine by me. I'd prefer not to give up my personal info willingly, and let it be my own stupid fault if I get owned by some random nerd. Maybe it's not for other folks. :shrug-outta-hecks:
I admit his broad premise is correct: a FOSS OS or browser undoubtedly will have security vulnerabilities that unknown bad actors could exploit. That sorta comes with the territory of everybody being able to see how the digital sausage is made, so to speak. Where he (and a lot of security researchers) miss the mark, though, is failing to acknowledge that Windows and Chrome have intentional security issues, and we know the names of the bad actors already: Microsoft and Google.
I'll gladly accept the risk of somebody exploiting an oversight in whatever branch of the infinite branches of Linux I choose to install, than be guaranteed to surrender my personal data for free to some billionaires.
All the security features that he lists that are either missing or poorly implemented in Linux could be explained by the lack of a multi trillion dollar company developing Linux for profit
From what I've seen, security people tend to separate "privacy" from "security." Probably because the best security seems to always come at the expense of privacy, because profit. I agree with them that there is a massive trust difference that everyone can expect to have between Big Tech and Some Hacker, and it is basically that Big Tech is not going to steal your credit card info. It's not perfect and they might develop a surveillance tool that gets used by a hacker (and definitely the feds), but them seeing your most sensitive data is not much of a financial risk.
I would think that using Chromium for purchases and banking is safe enough for most people
That's a fair point. I'm sticking to my guns on Firefox, but other folks' risk assessments may come up differently than mine—and that's fine by me. I'd prefer not to give up my personal info willingly, and let it be my own stupid fault if I get owned by some random nerd. Maybe it's not for other folks. :shrug-outta-hecks: