this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
1050 points (98.2% liked)
Open Source
36861 readers
14 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
linux, unironically. literally all local infrastructure is running on windows, despite the security risks this entails.
Fair point but Linux is inherently safe either? The local library here has client PCs running Ubuntu 16.04 lts.. my point being that IT infrastructure is only ever as secure as the amount of continuous effort you put into securing it. Linux doesn't solve that.
Perhaps this will change drastically with immutable distros
What is immutable distros?
I'm not the best person to explain, but they're distros with a read-only root filesystem. In some implementations, any changes, like installing a new package, or upgrading a version, can be interpreted as migrating a system from a state to another. This can mitigate some security risks and make machines easier to maintain.
Check fedora atomic builds. They explain it very well.
It's not that it's inherently safe, but that Microsoft is inherently not.