[TriLUG] Can open source solutions be viable companies?

[al johson]

AMEN, Tanner!! Great response. I can't think of a time I've had a problem
with any of Microsoft's software that they've actually fixed it. It seems
that Microsoft doesn't really want to fix any of their software (yes, they
do produce "fixes" to a certain select group--more on that later), when they
can bury their mistakes and try to fix it and make more money at the same
time by simply creating a new version. So it goes like this Microsoft
releases Windows 95 (which has problems and which gives them an excuse to
create--) Windows 98 (etc., etc. etc.) with NT, 2000, and now XP. But they
never fix anything, they just create new errors which are never fixed. Now
if you want to get anything fixed in Microsoft software, then you have to
pay money for the fixes, in essence you have to pay a fee which gives you
the fixes which Microsoft USED to give out freely.
    Contrast this with Linux and the Macintosh Operating system--to fix
anything in either of these systems you just have to download the newest
version of the program causing the problem. And did I add that it is always
EASIER in either of these operating systems to add or remove or replace any
program than it has ever been in any Microsoft product.
---Al Johnson.
==================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Tanner Lovelace <lovelace at wayfarer.org>
To: <trilug at trilug.org>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: [TriLUG] Can open source solutions be viable companies?


> Apologies in advance for the strong language below.  If that
> sort of stuff bothers you, please just delete this message now.
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
>
> On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 14:32, Vestal, Roy L. wrote:
> > The "catch"
> > is the old fight we all have to fight: "Open source is not as secure as
> > closed source becaus everyone has it". Same Argument Different Day
(SADD).
>
> Roy, this isn't to you because I believe you know better, but that
> argument is pure horseshit.  In fact, I will contend that open source
> software can be more secure precisely because everyone has it.
>
> Tell your bosses to take a look at the stuff Bruce Schneir says
> about secure systems.  True security doesn't depend on the
> process (or operating system) being closed off.  True security
> abstracts what needs to be kept secret into a very small package.
> By doing this you make it much easier to keep secure because you
> have much less to worry about.  In the case of linux, everyone
> having it actually makes it more secure because you've got that
> many more people looking for bugs to fix.  The chances that the
> person who finds the bug will be a "good guy" (tm) is that much
> greater.  In addition, he can alert the proper people to make
> sure the bug gets fixed.  This doesn't happen in the MS world
> because, even if you do report a bug to MS, there isn't an
> incentive to fix it.  They would much rather bury the story
> and provide a fix "someday" in some obtuse service pack.
>
> So, anyone who says Open Source is less secure should back
> away from kissing MS's behind and take a look at the world
> around them.  The facts just do *not* support their position.
>
> Tanner
> --
> Tanner Lovelace | lovelace at wayfarer.org | http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
> --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
> GPG Fingerprint = A66C 8660 924F 5F8C 71DA  BDD0 CE09 4F8E DE76 39D4
> GPG Key can be found at http://wtl.wayfarer.org/lovelace.gpg.asc
> --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
> Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little yellow bolts of light!
>                                 Commander John Crichton (Farscape)
>
> _______________________________________________
> TriLUG mailing list
>     http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ:
>     http://www.trilug.org/~lovelace/faq/TriLUG-faq.html