Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:27:29 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Unable to compile cygwin
Message-ID:	<20031222192729.GA30356@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<BCELLMLNMKLBEEMIBLGDEEOOCHAA DOT gabriel DOT soubies AT thales-is DOT com> <20031222164832 DOT GC2545 AT redhat DOT com> <bs7c1p$ob0$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <bs7ft7$s4$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<bs7ft7$s4$1@sea.gmane.org>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.1i
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:15:34AM -0800, Shankar Unni wrote:
>Jim Ramsay wrote:
>>Ha! Ask that boss to prove to you that there is no security problem
>>running Windows on a 'secure' network.
>
>To a person with that mentality, Bill Gates is implicitly trustworthy
>(i.e.  if he says it's true, it must be true by definition, because
>it's a "big company that stands by its products"), while anything Open
>Source is written by h4x0rs and thus must "prove its trustworthiness".
>
>How, you ask them?  They don't know, but you'd better "know".  No point
>arguing with them..

Proving the trustworthiness of any important system is never a waste of
time.

Let me state again, for the record: cygwin is not secure.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -