On Friday 20 June 2003 06:01 pm, JoeHill wrote: > This "theory" has been thoroughly debunked. Closed source software is > just as vulnerable, if not more so (just see MS as one particularly > egregious example). Not only that, but it is quite clear that the > response time for closing vulnerablilities in the Open Source side is a > fraction of that for proprietary. Open Source coders are also more > likely to discover *potential* vulnerabilities *before* they make it to > production because of the far superior oversight. >
I agree to a point. Yes, its not as vulnerable and it is probably safe and its been gone over well before its been put into production, but holes do happen even with the best of programmers and the best of software. I'm not saying that Closed source is better, only that why give a group or a nut, as the case may be, a leg up by showing them how it all works. At least with closed software they have to discover that on their own. All I'm saying is that I happen to agree that there are instances where perhaps the GPL is not necessary. As someone else has already pointed out, the GPL is perhaps overly complicated and that in and of its self could perhaps be enough to suggest the government steer clear of it. How do you go about suing the government over their violation of the GPL? Yes, it can be done, but in some instances at what cost? Tom Williams
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
