zlacker

The latter, because the "tiny probability of memory corruption" can easily become a CVE.

>>Jweb_G+(OP)
We have a term for this.

FUD

>>P5fRxh+x9
Linux has numerous CVEs, and a large percentage stem from memory corruption. That's not FUD, I'm afraid.

>>Jweb_G+1d
It's FUD. And not only that. The fear of constantly being attacked by an external entity is also paranoic.

>>scoutt+tZ
Unfortunately, whether you personally care about this sort of thing isn't good enough anymore. Owned Linux boxes on IoT devices are now being marshaled into massive botnets used to perform denial of service attacks, while other vulnerabilities are exploited to enable ransomware. You having negligent security on your own unpatched box because you don't personally feel like it's a good tradeoff has many negative external consequences. Fortunately, the decision isn't actually up to you (and having fewer vulnerabilities won't influence you negatively anyway, so I'm not sure why you're so angry about it).

>>Jweb_G+kak
> why you're so angry about it

Am I?

You suppose a lot of things about me from literaly a bunch of words.

"A 'tiny probability of memory corruption' can easily become a CVE" is still FUD, because is simply not true in most cases. The words "tiny" and "easily" show the bias here.

The rest of the conversation seems a symptom of Hypervigilance: Fixation on potential threats (dangerous people, animals, or situations).

Fortunately, the decision isn't up to you either.