On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Willi Dyck wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:45:35PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > because obviously, if only micro$oft can look at the code, then noone
> > else can find bugs *and* micro$oft has complete control over security.
>
> M$ is always good for a j
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:45:35PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> because obviously, if only micro$oft can look at the code, then noone
> else can find bugs *and* micro$oft has complete control over security.
M$ is always good for a joke.
Probaly a new tip for will trillich for his random signature:
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:36:07PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
| also sprach D-Man (on Thu, 17 May 2001 02:11:46PM -0400):
| > """
| > Limited Developer Tools
| >
| > There are limited developer tools available for Linux. Those that are
| > available are much more difficult to use than Microsoft Visual
also sprach D-Man (on Thu, 17 May 2001 02:11:46PM -0400):
> """
> Limited Developer Tools
>
> There are limited developer tools available for Linux. Those that are
> available are much more difficult to use than Microsoft Visual Studio.
> Thus, the same application can take much longer to develop
also sprach Frank Zimmermann (on Thu, 17 May 2001 05:53:40PM +0100):
> not really the lastest news. Suse already respondet at the 11.05.
> (sorry only fond a german version:
> http://www.suse.de/de/news/hotnews/MS.html ) and the OpenSource
> Community responded recently to this:
> http://perens.co
also sprach Willi Dyck (on Thu, 17 May 2001 06:37:42PM +0200):
> Linux is less secure
>
> "Open source" means that anyone can get a copy of the source code.
> Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same
> is not true with Microsoft Windows.
>
> Damn! How can I protect
6 matches
Mail list logo
