> devices you refer to) for. You can't plan for all that (borrowing your > words) and you can't have definitive and totally confident answers for > all (even banally) possible problems. I feel strange making this > suggestion to someone who seems to be a Qubes OS developer, because > Qubes OS is based on a philosophy that is very similar to what I am > saying here. >
Even the biggest Linux (or OS) loophole that Qubes OS addresses, and the main attraction of Qubes OS is so very banal: GUI isolation. And when people (yes, like me) raised questions about the security of Linux, they received answers in tones very similar to yours and with similar reasoning. That's one of the biggest (banal) mysteries to me: How could so many people for such a long time overlook such a huge loophole in an OS that was Open Source and based on the Linus's Law? The partial answer is, and I know this personally, that many people (too many) actually knew of this loophole, but didn't disclose or acknowledge it. There were students writing keyloggers based on this loophole, but there was an informal code (Omertà like: not the Hindi film, but the original one). Regards, अनिल एकलव्य (Anil Eklavya) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/CAAPfsu95MJFPU_ycAUey91CswctcQDPeBt4GS3RsumeDoaom8A%40mail.gmail.com.
