Alfred wrote: "I agree, Raymond. The potential dangers of widespread open source software (including operating systems) are great."
Raymond wrote: "If Microsoft has such a problem with people hacking into the loopholes of their closed source code, what type of malicious viruses will we begin seeing if an Open Source Operating system such as Linux becomes the dominant OS?" I'm still confused by this POV. We KNOW how insecure Windows is and we've SEEN how quickly the open source community addresses issues with open source software,. We've also seen MS delay, not admit there are issues, produce insufficient fixes or fixes that break other aspects of the OS. We've also seen MS only allow those who have sprung for XP to have access to security fixes. For example, the popup blocker in SP2, and other security measures have not been made available to Win 2K or 98 users. The upcoming MSIE 7 will only be available to XP SP2 users. Meanwhile, MS's donation programs through TechSoup only provides Win2K and 98. So much for closed source for-profit OSs. It would appear that MS doesn't think that nonprofits and others who have to make use of donation programs deserve the higher security provided with XP SP2. Nice guys. Nobody supporting the "yikes! I'm scared of open source software!" argument has offered one iota of proof that their scenario will come to pass. As I stated yesterday, we already KNOW how akin to swiss cheese Windows is. How could any OS provide less security? This is a Chicken-Little approach to open source if I've ever seen one. Furthermore, Raymond's logic is incorrect. OSs, open source or otherwise are not inherently secure or insecure. Windows was DESIGNED that way so that there could be lots of communications between boxes across the LAN or WAN without human interference. It was part of the plan before security became such an issue. If MS has big problems patching their security holes it might say something about the competence of the organization, but it says nothing about the ability of the open source community to fix security holes in Linux or other open source software. Please offer proof of why it would be worse than what we are already experiencing. I'm not accusing anyone of being shills for MS, but it would be nice to understand why this point of view is so strongly held given the lack of any solid reasoning behind it. Jon gave anecdotal evidence about the time differential between the way corporations do fixes and patches and the way the open source community does. I'd be interested in hearing about how/why anyone believes an open source world would be such a Wes Craven flick! Jesse Sinaiko Chicago, Il _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
