Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Subject: Re: Unable to compile cygwin Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:31:57 -0600 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <20031222215956 DOT GB32638 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/