On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:14:40 +0100, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6 Jul 2004, at 7:15 pm, The Fool wrote: > > > Secunia agreed that straightforward comparisons are not possible, > > partly > > because some products receive more scrutiny than others. > > > > Microsoft products are researched more because of their wide use, while > > open-source products are easier to analyse because researchers have > > general access to the source code, Kristensen said. > > > > "A product is not necessarily more secure because fewer vulnerabilities > > are discovered," he added. > > Even the authors of the 'report' admit it is meaningless. > > -- > William T Goodall > Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk > Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ > > "Our products just aren't engineered for security." - Brian Valentine, > senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development > team.
Analog has an article 'OPEN MINDS, OPEN SOURCE' by Eric S. Raymond, surprisingly not online, with reasons why open source software is more reliable. Gary Denton #1 on google for liberal news _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
