advertisement

Weblog:   Is Open Source Secure?
Subject:   Biased article from O'reilly
Date:   2004-02-16 06:48:35
From:   musnat
I am sorry but I was hoping that divx editor was wrong. I have seen nothing but an answer which confirms the divx editor's arguments. First of all, the author tries to discredit the other person through accusations, which hint us that the author really got angry in a reasonable argument and just couldn't hold himself.


The divx editor proposes his arguments in a very sensible language, whereas the o'reilly author starts with bashing people and ends with bashing people. Between these two instead of addressing the arguments, he simply talks about other stuff and make bunch of claims.


Too sad people who support open source become too much dogmatic about these issues.

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

  • Biased article from O'reilly
    2004-02-16 11:57:12  dave128 [Reply | View]

    From you, I have seen nothing but an answer which shows that you have not read the article. Divx? It's DevX. Discredits through accusations? Any hint of that is only at the end of the article.

    Stone's argument does not rely on accusations. He touts the security of Open Source software through its openness, and questions the safety of any software which relies on security through obscurity.

    He also points out that some of the DevX Editor's arguments are equally applicable to closed-source software.

    It might be a good idea for you to read an article twice before replying.
    • Biased article from O'reilly
      2004-02-17 17:58:24  musnat [Reply | View]

      Cheap corrections like devx does prove that your whole support for open source is based on microsoft bashing. I have read the articles, yet it seems that your hate prevents you from making a logical conclusion and reasoning. The best way to understand whether an article actually answers another article is to look at whether it has personal attacks or not. Clearly O'reilly article has them, and it doesn't even address the concerns raised in the article, thus one has to conclude that this article is nothing more than zealtory. I don't think people are going to buy cheap shots at Microsoft or people who raise serious questions about certain issues in open source. This is not even remotely related with whether you are pro or anti Microsoft. You might be anti-Microsoft and still raise the same question, however many insecure anti-Microsoft people hate to see these questions and thus make personal attacks, that's why O'reilly article is very poor in taste and barely matches similar Slashdot editorials. Putting the dirty stuff under the rug will not make open source better. You are free to correct any grammatical errors, however the points made will remain here.
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.