On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Banibrata Dutta <banibrata.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano > <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> >> > security aspects I guess it would also not be much use, is this correct? >> Absolutely 100% wrong. It is an fundamental principle of security that >> you must not assume that the enemy is ignorant of your procedures. >> "Security by obscurity" is not security at all. >> >> See, for example: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_Principle >> > I believe, the use of work 'security' wasn't the best choice to describe the > need, if I understand the original poster's intentions. The intentions of > original poster were "intellectual property protection",
Which has little to do with the language in question. > where-in they have > indeed created something worth stealing, and would like to put it under > lock-n-key. For that purpose, I do not think Python is the right choice. Why? > BTW for people who are non-believers in something being worth stealing > needing protection, need to read about the Skype client. Most of the people I know who were interested in REing skype were a lot more interested in either interoperating with the protocol or ensuring that skype wasn't deliberately including malware or a backdoor. In any even I don't see this having anything to do with Python. Geremy Condra -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
