[NTLUG:Discuss] Washington Post article

[Ward Networks]

No Problemo.. MS is just doing what they are supposed to - they are
shrewd business people and you have to give them that. Chris is totally
correct which is what I meant by more people working on what I called
Loopholes. the open source can be less penetrable down the road since
more people are working on it and no inferences to your integrity (or
anyone elses) were made or infered my friend. I did not read the article
but if you are right and they were insinuating that open source writers
have less integrity then of course we all know that to be just a spin
technique on their part.. As a successful international developer
myself, I admire their diligence, however, understanding that their
argument is weak at best.. I think we are on the same page here.. 
 
Have a great holiday weekend amigo,
 
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 5:54 PM
To: discuss at ntlug.org
Subject: RE: [NTLUG:Discuss] Washington Post article
 
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/20020523/0712a373/attachment.html