Fair enough; I read a quote a few days ago, but can't find it again to properly cite... It was in reference to If Plan 9 Is Truly Better, Why Linux? And it was to the effect of "The biggest risk to Great software is Good Enough software," and that may be true...
But getting "Stuck" on 1960s technology isn't "Progress" either... And at what point should the world suck it up, and swallow the cost of upgrading For The Greater Good? I also believe in competition, natural selection, and survival of the fittest... 15 years ago, when I was first getting into Linux, I argued that a heterogeneous population of hardware and software will encourage the hurd-immunity of the whole network... I argued that me, personally using Linux actually made the whole internet safer, as a particular threat is unlikely to be effective against me, AND the Windows Users, AND the Mac OS users, etc. The "Diversity" was a good thing. And I THINK the researcher in the original security article was making a similar point: By encouraging competition among similar but not identical implimentations, some will be "Better" than others in certain ways, worse in others; Vulnerable to some attacks, immune to others... But to hide it all away in the kernel prevents competition... Interferes with the "Many Eyes" principle that Open Source argues in favor of. I guess I'm concerned that there isn't enough competition to keep the internet safe. I'm concerned that capitalism, and the acceptance of work flows that "Technically work, and are cheap enough to not want better" is the enemy at hand... _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
