DISCLAIMER: I have been in rant mode about security lately, I don't know why.
Take all of the following with a grain of salt. :-)
Ugh, propaganda just drives me nuts; it sells an agenda, not the
product/service/ideal/whatever. Now, I admit, I'm not a marketer. But I am
all for Open Source, and some of these claims are just seem a little too far
out there to resonate with me:
4) "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
There's no evidence to support this. Open Source software can be more secure;
it can also be much worse than closed source. Secure software has little
to do with whether it's open or not; good software design and adhering
to best practices has more to do with it. IANAD (Developer), but this just
strikes me as common sense.
Now, open vs. closed regarding finding/patching security holes in software? I
think the jury is still deliberating, but from what I've seen Open Source
definitely has the upper hand. The fundamental here is many eyes only make
things more secure when looking at security.
Basically, the comment strikes me as an oversimplification designed to put the
customer's/business' mind at ease (read: make complacent due to perceived
safety). Next:
"When a programmer develops a new cryptographic system, he or she wants to
publish the specifications so that as many people as possible can try to
crack it."
Yes, but that's not Open Source. That a published cryptographic algorithm.
At best it's analogous. The principle is the same (openness fosters
strengthening), but the principle wasn't stated. :-P
"We haven't had a 9/11 of computer security," Andreessen says, but it's
coming, and "it will wipe hard drives and propagate."
WHAT?! This is by far the worst statement in the entire article. FLOSS
advocates would call this FUD coming from Microsoft (or anyone else, for that
matter). A rose by any other name...
I don't want FUD advancing Open Source. I want the clearly stated and
factually evident benefits advancing Open Source.
5) "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Why phrase it like this? It has political overtones. Why not just say, "Open
Source is international" or "knows no borders" or something?
Maybe these answers were off-the-cuff. I can definitely allow some slack.
Not everybody is their finest-spoken when interviewed on-the-spot or in a
quick e-mail. But if this was intended as a published PR piece... yikes.
8) "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on
Intel."
OK, I know Linux isn't expensive and proprietary. So why is Intel in this
statement?
12) "It's free."
Sure, that's how I see it, too. But it's actually a poor representation of
the business aspects surrounding adoption of Open Source/Linux.
The article is titled "12 Reasons Andreessen Is Hot On Open Source" but he
alternates between using the terms "Open Source" and "Linux" a little too
interchangeably. Not trying to sound like RMS ("GNU/Linux"), but what
exactly _is_ he talking about?
Maybe I'm just being picky, but last I checked the *BSDs were open source and
ran on Intel. Mostly it sounds like a marketing scam based on the good name
of Linux.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate good marketing. But I really hate
misleading statements.
All that being said, I'm glad whenever well-known proponents throw their hat
into the Linux ring. It can only mean better support and adoption in the
long run..
Flame away. :-D
Curtis
On Mon March 22 2004 00:39, Shawn wrote:
> Thought some might find this of interest:
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18400999
>
> Shawn
>
> _______________________________________________
> clug-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
