On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:16:46 -0000, Van Dalsen, Herbie wrote: > >In my opinion, what makes IBM code safe in terms Auditing risk, is the >fact that only IBM labs work on it. You need a really P'd-off IBMer to >plant a Trojan in the code, and a few P'd-off testers to miss it during >testing. So I would not be in favor of open source for the mainframe. I >think too many companies depend on the current quality level of the >software. What I would be in favor of is a platform where developers >outside of IBM can present new software designs/ideas to be included >after proper securitization. > Perhaps of even more concern to IBM, but not to customers, is intellectual property. It's less difficult to "securitize" code than to scan it to assure that the developer included no IP to which he lacked rights. This is aggravated if the developer is a non-employee. IBM has long been reluctant to incorporate outside code in its products for this reason. When you report a software problem, don't suggest a coding resolution; you may thereby tie IBMs hands in providing the best solution.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
