Re: [Full-Disclosure] why commcerical software *could* be better [WAS: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux]

[Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:33:11 -0800
Gadi Evron <ge@egotistical.reprehensible.net> wrote:

> I apologize if this somehow gets to the list twice, I accidentally 
> posted it here with the wrong email address:
> 
> 2. A commercial company providing with liability (and responsibility)
>     for the software you use (in other words - tech support and someone
>     to blame).

Can you explain what responsibility does m$ take for its crap? Just read
the m$ EULA again before using the word "responsibility". (having the
right to say "fsck bill" does not qualify as responsibility).

> 3. No source (!!) available for people to examine, thus making it, to a
>     level, harder to locate security "holes" - for outsides in any case.
> 

There are enough bugs in windoze, but haven't you heard the rumours that
a lot of propriatary os code has leaked?

georgi


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html