Greetings Nick!
On Sunday, May 28, 2000 at 10:10:20 GMT -0700 (which was 10:10 AM
where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
NA> Ummmm... I don't think you can "dismiss such claims" based solely on the
NA> Open Source Code. Remember, one point of the argument _for_ obscurity, is
NA> that with Open Source, not only can the good guys find problems, but so
NA> can the bad guys, only they won't be so forthright in letting others know
NA> of it.
I'm not an expert, I'm not a reverse-engineer, but I know...
If you obscure it, then someone will just reverse-engineer it until
they know what's in it. Or know enough about what's in it that it is
no longer obscured. Again, this is exactly how shareware programs get
cracked. It's stupid to think that obscurity alone by itself will be
a silver bullet. You might make it take longer to figure out.
It's delaying the unavoidable. And big sis makes a stupid greedy
mistake with this. But you can believe what you want to believe.
You can write your spaghetti coded, obscured, closed source all you
want, there will still be those who can figure out just enough to
crack through what ever you do. Go ahead, use obscurity, but don't
rely on it completely 100% or your in for a big suprise. I am one
individual that won't be listening to big sis's propaganda about
obscurity.
OTOH- if you make source available, then people report and fix bugs,
and it only gets better.
--
... If only women came with pulldown menus and online help like The Bat! does..
--- The Bat! 1.44 + 98Lite + Revenge of Mozilla II
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
