On 23/10/14 11:03, Mohan Sundaram wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Karthikeyan A K <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Who know how many shell shock Microsoft hides? And how many of it is known
>> by NSA?
> I'm of the opinion that FOSS is certainly better. Your statement about
> MS does not give me added comfort with FOSS. I'm bothered about the
> vulnerabilities and impact in the absolute sense in FOSS.
>
> I've used FOSS for a long time and have managed a webfarm for 4 years
> in the 90s. I've always marvelled at the fact that Linux machines were
> simply rock solid, not hacked and a low overhead management platform
> while MS machines were insecure and a nightmare. I've never before
> encountered a serious vulnerability in Linux as Heartbleed/ shellshock
> that shook the foundation of the platform stack used for web
> applications itself.
>
> I referred to ESR's thoughts/works like CatB as I believe in them
> strongly (so much that I travelled to meet him for a chat at his
> residence in Wayne PA in the 90s). Those premises failed in these
> cases badly. Both SSL and Bash have been around for a long time, used
> by many and were considered robust components. It was after a long
> while that the enterprise segment believed in FOSS and adopted such
> robust pieces.
>
> That confidence has been pummelled by these incidents. The painstaking
> gains made by FOSS in enterprise adoption would get eroded, whether we
> like it or not. The sniggers will be back.
>
> I posted this originally as I was concerned when I saw the statistics
> quoted. This is what the commercial enterprise software vendors will
> grab and use against FOSS. Luckily, most of them used SSL/TLS and so
> cannot blow their own trumpets.
>
> We will need to wait and watch how the scenario unfolds and affects FOSS.
Again, you place a very reasoned opinion. Much respect.

Vik
_______________________________________________
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
ILUGC Mailing List Guidelines:
http://ilugc.in/mailinglist-guidelines

Reply via email to