IMHO the open source crowd fixes bugs a magnitude faster than the m$ lusers - check www.guninski.com,>there are dates on which vendors were notified. Check the unpatched exploder page to get an idea.
As much as generally and usually I'd vigorously agree with you, there is a lot to be said for:
1. A serious (note serious) commercial company that has a crew working on addressing security concerns, and updating the product.
2. A commercial company providing with liability (and responsibility) for the software you use (in other words - someone to blame).
3. No source available for people to examine, thus making it, to a level, harder to locate security "holes" - for outsides in any case.
I can come up with a few more.. but basically all I am saying is, support open source, don't condemn commercial software. There is a difference between the two ideologies, and one should follow/support
whichever suits him/her best. Constructive vs. destructive attitudes? :o)
--
Gadi Evron (i.e. ge),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Trojan Horses Research mailing list - http://ecompute.org/th-list
My resume (Hebrew) - http://vapid.reprehensible.net/~ge/resume.rtf
PGP key for [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
http://vapid.reprehensible.net/~ge/Gadi_Evron.asc
Note: this key is used mainly for files and attachments, I sign email messages using:
http://vapid.reprehensible.net/~ge/Gadi_Evron_sign.asc
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
