On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:06:02 -0400 Thomas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
They didn't state it directly, at least not that I saw, but it would stand to reason that you don't want critical software to be
publicly available so that would-be terrorists or crackers can read
the source code and find a way in.
This "theory" has been thoroughly debunked. Closed source software is just as vulnerable, if not more so (just see MS as one particularly egregious example). Not only that, but it is quite clear that the response time for closing vulnerablilities in the Open Source side is a fraction of that for proprietary. Open Source coders are also more likely to discover *potential* vulnerabilities *before* they make it to production because of the far superior oversight.
Why else would the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security be using Linux?
A more cogent case for close-source software would be something like a missile targetting system. It's not that you don't want the enemy to get into it - you don't want them to get their hands on it and be able to use it themselves.
Sir Robin
-- "Some guy breaking into a government computer system and wreaking havoc makes for a more interesting movie plot than some guy writing device drivers. It's hard to work in a good 10-minutes car chase scene with some guy who writes device drivers..." - tjc, post to LWN
Robin Turner IDMYO Bilkent Univeritesi Ankara 06533 Turkey
www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
