As we known Linux's source is open to everyone, so it should be more easily digged into by some computer specialist .
I wonder, compared with other close source Operation sysytem,
whether it means Linux is easily intruded ????

in linux.... before any kernel / security critical code gets into a distro, it is viewed by many many many people.... the probablility of no1 noticing a flaw is much smaller than that in closed source, where very few people see the source before it is used.

larrylovelinux is true,
moreover I'd like to add that's not because something is public (linux source code) that it's weak. For example encryption algorithm like DES, SHA-1... are public domain and they must not contain many flaws.
And personnally, I think the opposite than you: When something is public, it must be very secure... at least more secure than proprietary implementations.
Oliv'

I love these bait type threads. Open Source means that the code has been reviewed by a lot of people, some good , some bad. It's also been run thru the guantlet by a lot of people. Look at OpenBSD and it's out of the box security history (or lack there of).

the problem with ANY code is that the developers behind it are human and prone to make mistakes. Open Source gets tested in the battle ground of the end user community where as a proprietary OS such as Windows, gets tested in a lab.

That is not a true statement. It has truth to it. It would be true in the case of the Linux kernel, *BSD, or some other popular project OS. But if I wrote a software program and posted it for download you can't assume that lots of people have looked at it. Especially if it isn't that popular. And even if people do look at the source and find a flaw, that doesn't mean they'll report it. Hell, I've found flaws that I didn't report. It wasn't a huge flaw but I definately could've put in a report to RH.

Not to rag on you about one statement but it just wasn't really true. It does have some merit in the case of the big named OSS projects.