Why don't linux systems protect themselves against malware?
>>106498514
>Why don't linux systems protect themselves against malware?
Because Linus rejected PaX/Grsecurity in 2008 for no reason.
Then Grsecurity decided to violate the GPL in 2017-ongoing (of both GCC and Linux) because they had the backing of the US Army. Who will just seize whatever Linux Kernel related patents exist under the The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 if Linux retaliates in a lawsuit. This is enough of a threat to keep any possibility of such at bay.
>NOOO LINUX DOESNT HAVE ANY PATENTS
Yes "it" does, which is the whole reason "it" didn't go to GPLv3: to avoid forced patent agreements.
>Why don't linux systems protect themselves against malware?
Because Linus rejected PaX/Grsecurity in 2008 for no reason.
Then Grsecurity decided to violate the GPL in 2017-ongoing (of both GCC and Linux) because they had the backing of the US Army. Who will just seize whatever Linux Kernel related patents exist under the The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 if Linux retaliates in a lawsuit. This is enough of a threat to keep any possibility of such at bay.
>NOOO LINUX DOESNT HAVE ANY PATENTS
Yes "it" does, which is the whole reason "it" didn't go to GPLv3: to avoid forced patent agreements.