The insecure parts of Linux is mostly on the DE side opposed to the core OS part that servers use. We absolutely will see more vulnerabilities in the future as Linux grows.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Many developments over the last few years have been for improving those aspects, e.g. Wayland is far more secure than X11 could ever be. There will be more vulnerabilities found, but it won't be as bad as one might fear.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago

Wayland takes a lot of abuse but it is a great example of what is great about FOSS. Completely proprietary software could never abide that level of disruption.

If being driven by a minor player, it is just too hard and too risky. A commercial player with the economic dominance to pull it off would never see enough financial benefit to bother.

Take Windows. Even though modern Windows is from the “New Technology” branch of the Windows family, the security model was flawed with all users commonly running as Admin. Instead of really changing that, they have introduced a couple layers of duct tape ( eg. UAC ) but not fundamentally fixed it.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

Flatpak too, they could force more filesystem restrictions tho, line Android apps

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago

What vulnerabilities are you talking about? Linux is pretty solid especially with wayland and flatpaks.

Throw in some other tools like mandatory access controls and you are set

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Well, servers don't generally run Thunderbird and Firefox