On Tue, 21 May 2002, Richard Soule wrote: > Benjamin Scott wrote: > > Oh, this is just too good. > > http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D701%2526a%253D26875,00.asp > > First, remember the letter from the Brazilian politician? It seems like > a case could be made that using closed source is NOT the way to go. How > about sending both links to our politicians with a nicely worded > letter...
I'm not sure I'd give this so much importance. Really, what I see here is risk mitigation to avoid potential liability for "terrorist" attacks on gov't machines. "Sorry, we told you we weren't secure in a court of law, you can't do much about it." It is notable, but it's marketing/risk management spin. I would imagine that if Red Hat were in the same position, they'd say the same thing. Just my guess, of course, but how could they/why would they claim otherwise? Just my .02.. -- "It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
