Ben Boulanger wrote: > 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 [snip] > 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?
Ahh... but Red Hat can't say the same thing if you think that MS is saying "Our closed source APIs are insecure, so we are going to hide them from you. Fixes will come from the same brain dead developers that delivered the broken APIs to you in the first place, and only when we feel like it. Of course you will have to trust us when we say that they are fixed because we are not going to let you look at the code." Red Hat would say "Our open source APIs are also insecure, but you (or any of the other millions of people with access to the code) can fix them if you like. You don't have to trust us when we say they are fixed, you can look at the code yourself." To me that is a HUGE difference. The more I think about this the more it becomes apparent that open source should be required for all gov't software [ except mine, of course :) ]. Rich -- These view are certainly not those of my employer, they are mine. ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
