To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=61685
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 9 14:05:05 -0800 2006 ------- Just some additional comments on the perception of EE's. Here, http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sec/0327sec1.html , an older article about security. Notice this part: "How much space in the source and object code does this Easter egg take? How much RAM and disk space are being wasted by all the people who have installed and are using this product? And much more seriously, what does this Easter egg imply about the quality assurance at the manufacturer's offices? An Easter egg is presumably undocumented code - or at least, it's undocumented for the users. ...I think the failure implies that there is no test-coverage monitoring in that quality assurance process." In the article, the author is talking about MS products. Do we really want OOo to be substituted and the target of analysis like this? Here, http://www.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/secgloss.htm , we have a glossary of among other things, information security terms. Here is part of what is said about EE's: "Opinion regarding easter eggs varies, from those who see them as simply harmless jokes to those who consider the more complex inclusions to be trojan horses. In general, however, the practice of including easter eggs and other undocumented code in programs is detrimental to strict security." By continuing to include the EE's, OOo may be practicing something that is considered "detrimental to strict security". Is that the message we want potential users to get? Finally, here http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/12/01/161213 we have a parody that was written just this past December about aliens (real aliens, like little green men from space) inserting malicious code into OSS projects like Linux. The thing about writing something like this is that it must contain little gems of truth to it and introduce concepts that are silly. Down near the end we find this: "As mentioned above, Windows is far too secure to be compromised by an alien. Not only that -- and this is the important part -- there is no way for that alien to hide code within Windows itself, while it could easily become a Linux kernel contributor and slip its nefarious Easter eggs into Linux." Why is that funny? Obviously because there is a belief that, thanks to the OSS programming method, the presence of Easter eggs in Linux is ridiculous. And it is probably equally ridiculous for other major OSS apps (which I think OOo is one). Yet here we are with EE's included in the code. While I appreciate the position of the programmers and others who don't mind the EE's, I fear there is far more of a downside to including them than there is an upside. Yes, the downside may be based a lot on perceptions. Unfortunately, it is far too common in this day and age that perceptions = reality. And as we try to push for wider adoption of OOo, this is one perception that we should not have to battle if it can be corrected. Once again, thanks for your consideration! Jeff Causey --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
