On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:31 pm, Charlie M. wrote: > > I don't know about your own experiences, but everytime I have been > > involved in a product development effort designed by a committee, I have > > not been overly impressed with the final results. Again, YMMV. > > My own personal experiences with anything involving committees forces me to > fall back on an old quote: > > "A committee is the only lifeform in the known universe with many limbs, > many eyes, many mouths...... > > and no brains." > > Sorry but I thought the discussion was becoming too intense. > > No offence intended. (-:
No offense taken here, I was just plugging my .02 pence in to the discussion. Everytime that I see someone suggesting that open source developers cooperate with industry more, work with committees, etc., I almost always get visions of a pack of wolves inviting the sheep in for dinner. Not that I distrust business, mind you, but traditional corporations' entire business models are diametrically opposed to what open source is trying to do, so I think that you have to keep your eyes wide open when they start to make nice. Such suggestions sound a lot like SCO's recent letter asking open source developers to let them help monetize Linux. Or Forbes Magazine's dismissal of open source because the FSF doesn't put a price tag on licensing but instead demands that Cisco contribute back to the same movement that they benefited from by releasing its source based on Linux. At a certain point, you have to just recognize that some people are just never going to "get it." Move on, do what we do best and let them join in once they realize that people aren't buying buggy whips because they already bought an automobile and they simply aren't interested in discussing ways to incorporate buggy whips into cars. > > In my experience, nothing is secure. If you want absolute security, load > > software on the box, rip out all the disk drives, network connections, > > external interfaces and the keyboard and you are now secure. I used to > > have an old XT computer chassis, no disk drives, no keyboard and no > > working ports, that was a pretty secure box. > > I don't disagree with what you say, but I understand Haywire's point. Well, if you understand Haywire, then I wouldn't think we would be in disagreement, my point was that Open Source appears to be secure, it appears to be more secure than any other source developed with traditional centralized, from the ground-up models, and until someone provides a practical example of a superior product that was built using a centralized, from the ground-up model, I am perfectly willing to take my chances with good old Linux, open source, disjointed, hacked together as it may be. > For > the average non-technically inclined computer user any GNU/Linux/Open > Source system is easier to secure and maintain as secure. Simply because > there are so many ways to work toward the goal and so many available tools > and layers of defence to use. Fact is, I personally feel that the unified architecture of centralized products is a disadvantage when it comes to security. I like the chaotic nature of current varied distributions of Linux. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
