On Tuesday 21 December 2004 08:16 am, Scott Harney wrote: > > Relevance of Torr's comments to Linux is that the distribution methodology > for Firefox is similar to the way most OSS is distributed.
What a poor choice of FUD Microsoft has chosen. Their model of "trust" and distribution are so obviously inferior, you wonder how they have the nerve to promote their methods. When it comes to trust, the guys who publish their code, don't arbitrarily limit my use of the software or make other obtuse demands obviously win. For trust in software installs, Microsoft obviously losses. What are they thinking? My response to the distribution concern is remarkably similar to the M$ response, "one of the ways you can reduce the risks of getting unwanted software on your machine is to only accept digitally signed software from vendors that you trust." I trust my distribution or I don't run it and my browser does not install software. Debian is a great example. Having everything pass through package maintainers who abide by a social contract assures me that every piece of software has been checked over by an honest person. I can compare this to the non free world, where "reputable" companies have been caught using spyware, where no independent checks are possible, EULAs have demanded read write access to your hard drive and the track record for security is miserable. All non free software represents a "random" risk, signed or not. Free software does not have to be a risk at all. Bill Gates himself can tell me that a piece of software is AOK, and I would not trust it.
