[NTLUG:Discuss] Washington Post article

[MontyS@videopost.com]

Well, okay ... point taken. :>

In reality, I am probably not quite as passionate about this subject as it
may appear.  I guess I was interpreting the aforementioned statement in the
same light as you interpreted mine.  I read the statement to mean "Well,
Microsoft is more secure than open-source, and since there isn't a study
disproving this, then that must be the way it is".  Reading that, in
conjunction with the Microsoft people talking about open-source software
being inherently more insecure due to it's open-source nature... well, that
just rang my bell a little too loudly.  

It was like they were insinuating that there is a subtle lack of integrity
on the part of open-source writers, (Which I am defenitely NOT.) and that
Microsoft code had more "integrity" behind it.

I know that Linux and all the other *nix operating systems are vulnerable as
well.  It just seems like Microsoft products have a disproportionate amount
of holes in them that have to be filled, especially when one considers how
long they have been releasing software.  This opinion is just based on what
I have read and heard.

I did not mean to speak out of turn.  I am far from being an expert on these
matters.

Sorry for the venting.  I will attempt to remain upright...  I'm taking deep
breaths...

Monty




> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ward Networks [SMTP:Kevin at wardnetworks.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:05 PM
> To:	discuss at ntlug.org
> Subject:	RE: [NTLUG:Discuss] Washington Post article
> 
> Monty,
>  
> A little balance here amigo...I can see that you are passionate with this
> subject but ALL code is equally vunerable, I have specific engineering
> applications published in 170 countries - there have been clever
> individuals from 5 continents whom I have worked with over the years that
> can penetrate just about any situation you can rig together with any OS.
> MS gets more attention because it is the prevelant system in place
> today...as Linux becomes more prevelant in the market place, you will see
> the same vunerability learning curve that MS has been consistantly dealing
> with as more people out there decide to hack the Linux system.  The plus
> side of the situation is that many more people will be detecting and
> closing the loopholes on the Linux side but the professors statement is
> thouroughly correct, there is no silver bullet with Linux or any other
> system availbable today.
>  
> My personal viewpoint is that the government should use Linux because I
> would like them to use less of my tax dollars but the issue is of little
> difference from a technical perspective.
>  
> Kevin
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-admin at ntlug.org [mailto:discuss-admin at ntlug.org] On Behalf
> Of MontyS at videopost.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 4:37 PM
> To: discuss at ntlug.org
> Subject: RE: [NTLUG:Discuss] Washington Post article
>  
> Although the pushy nature of Microsoft, as displayed in this article, is
> very disturbing, what disturbes me more is the following statement:
> "I have never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more
> secure."  WHAT?  This is coming from a professor of 
> computer science at Georgetown University?  Apparently, she has spent too
> much time in front of the lecturn, and too little time in front
> of the computer screen!!! 
> I guess that is just her opinion... 
> And she is actually teaching computer science courses?!  Hopefully nothing
> above Computer Security 101. 
> Monty 
>  
> -----Original Message----- 
> From:   Stephen Davidson [SMTP:gorky at freenet.carleton.ca] 
> Sent:   Thursday, May 23, 2002 3:14 PM 
> To:     NTLUG 
> Subject:        [NTLUG:Discuss] Washington Post article 
> Seems the Pentagon can no longer purchase open source software.  Oh wait,
> its free.... 
>  
> -Steve 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60050-2002May22.html> 
>  
> _______________________________________________ 
> <http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ntlug.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020523/59eb212a/attachment.html