| Article: |
Open Source Security: Still a Myth | |
| Subject: | I'm Not Convinced | |
| Date: | 2004-09-17 11:55:30 | |
| From: | chromatic | |
|
Response to: An extremely flawed article
|
||
|
I think that to prove your case, you'd have to prove that having the source code available for people to audit actually leads to widespread audits and security fixes. Otherwise, you're arguing a point that John deliberately didn't address.
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.
-
I'm Not Convinced
2004-09-17 12:17:08 McAction [Reply | View]
I absolutely agree that potential doesn't equal action and that some hard data would be very helpful. However, there was no hard data in the article either. I used the same sort of arguments that the author used, so I guess my comments probably were lacking in value as well. -
I'm Not Convinced
2005-01-18 21:03:45 musnat [Reply | View]
I think you are using open source zealtory, which has no merit at all.
Microsoft does share its source code with governments. That means a lot to anybody who is making a decision to buy Microsoft software. Everybody knows for sure that Microsoft's software has been checked out by other people who doesn't have a common interest to cheat you, China vs US etc...
On the other hand, we don't know who is really checking out open source. There is no formal way of knowing that.
You have no arguments, I think, you are simply one of the thousands of open source zealots who is more than ready to lie and distort facts or come up with all sorts of nonesense.



