"its hard not to argue that since the coding is open that it is easier to crack and infect. "
Then why is all the cracking and infecting done to CLOSED source code, and none to OPEN source code??
Because the code is Open, the vast majority of bugs and just plain sloppy code are found because millions of eyes are looking at it.
That's the beauty of open source, it quickly migrates to perfection. Its innards are all right there in plain sight yet it STILL can't be cracked. That is the definition of quality - you can see exactly how it works but you still can't break in.
Its a well known addage in information technology that "Security by obscurity is no security at all".
Keeping your code secret does not make it secure.
Microsoft is secret - yet it is totally insecure.
Vastly more is to be gained by breaking into web servers than into Joe Sixpack's computer. Yet the only web servers routinely broken into are those running Microsoft IIS (closed source), and it accounts for less than 20% of all servers on the web - but 98% of all breakins.
If I was a hacker looking to break in, I would pick the SOFTEST TARGET. Not the most PLENTIFUL TARGET. Ask any thief.
I can't believe after 5 years of Microsoft's CLOSED source software inflicting billions of dollars of damage on the net and business that there is STILL someone who believe the Micorsoft B.S. that insecurity comes with popularity.
You really need to upgrade your education on this issue.
Then why is all the cracking and infecting done to CLOSED source code, and none to OPEN source code?? >>>
Because open source makes up less than 5% of the market. Why bother with it. Your question is similar to asking somebody why most drownings are caused by water, could it be because most people swim in water, bathe in it, drink it?
Lets not forget on your other argument here about closed source, remember they are a company, they are in it to make money.They can do it only at the expense of its consumer for so long.