Re: M$ attack on Common Sense
From: Sinister Midget (sm_at_kcsmartNOSPAM.org)
Date: 09/14/03
- Next message: Sinister Midget: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Previous message: Sinister Midget: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- In reply to: User: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Next in thread: Ed Murphy: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:29:25 -0500
As User so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 03:08 GMT:
> "Sinister Midget" <sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org> wrote in message
> news:79d0kb.q6p.ln@host.newsservicer.org...
>> As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 at 23:33 GMT:
>
>> Not once have I *ever* needed to check the source to see if it was
>> safe. Instead I've been able to download the ISOs from trusted sources,
>> check against the MD5SUMs to be sure they're safe, burn them, plug them
>
> The checksum only checks the file has not been tampered with AFTER it was
> released for distibution (MS do this as well you know). It does not check
> to see if the is a deliberate trojan in the software or and accidental
> error. The ONLY way to do that is to review the source. If you have not
> reviewed the source and then compiled from the same source you reviewed then
> any claims about safety from OSS point of view are blasted out of the water.
Not so. I put some faith in the process because I know many others
reveiew the source. I also don't normally download things right when
they're released. That gives others time to find and report problems.
Still, even if everything you claim is true, the fact that I *can*
review the code, and the fact that others *do* review the code gives me
a safer place to begin than trusting the output from a company that
hides everything from me *and* from everyone else. How can *anybody*
know what they're getting if *nobody* has the chance to take a look at
it?
In fact, if they'd opened the code to review, the chances of some of
the patches that caused major problems ever becoming widespread would
have been much diminished. That it was hidden from view made the
resulting damage far worse than it needed to be.
This idea that *every* set of eyes need to look at the code to make it
safer is a strawman. Compared to the alternative (no eyes can see it),
having a large number looking at it is far preferable, whether
everybody does or not.
-- SoBig - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software at its finest!
- Next message: Sinister Midget: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Previous message: Sinister Midget: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- In reply to: User: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Next in thread: Ed Murphy: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
