Are you telling me that Microsoft has fewer resources than the people at OpenBSD and must keep their source to themselves or suffer a security disaster? Microsoft is once again trying to blame others for their own failures. Hiding your sloppy work does not make it secure. People can and will find your holes with or without the source code.
Code quality does come from software freedom. Software that is free will evolve or die. That evolution is cheaper and more efficient than the closed source model, so you are always going to get more bang for your effort by making your code free or just using the free thing to begin with. The proof is as easy as reviewing uptimes and TCOs. On 2004.02.13 01:08 David Jackson wrote: >... > > Having the source code to a piece of software leaves it wide open for > abuse. HOWEVER, among the open source community, there are a wider > array of individuals who can (and will) check out the code and seek out > potential exploitable holes (your aforementioned security audit). > > ... > > I know it's a common sentiment among the open source community to > militantly defend against the notion that available source code makes > software less secure, but the only defense is in the efforts of the open > source community to audit software that is available. > > -=D
