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
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Jim Ramsay <i DOT am AT jimramsay DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Unable to compile cygwin
Date:	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:31:57 -0600
Lines:	20
Message-ID:	<bs7rcu$bcf$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<BAY9-F16kERMwSuWPjm00018ce5 AT hotmail DOT com> <20031222215956 DOT GB32638 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4
In-Reply-To:	<20031222215956.GB32638@redhat.com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> Yeah.  You're right.  It's better to just assume it's gloriously
> trustworthy if it's free software and maliciously bad if it comes from
> Microsoft.

I like your sarcasm, but I prefer to assume that the only truly secure 
network is one without computers attached, and the only truly secure 
computer is one with no OS, or no users :)

Sadly both of these are hard to do anything useful with, so in reality I 
believe (in general) it is easier to check the security of an 
open-source product since I can look at the source code and see if there 
are unchecked buffers, backdoors, etc.  I am by no means a security 
expert, so I'm sure I'd miss lots of things, but theoretically there are 
lots of other people also checking the same code as me and helping make 
things more secure.

-- 
Jim Ramsay


--
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 -