| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Jan Klod <janklodvan@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
<snip rambling flame> |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I'm not going to address each of the fallacies I see in your |
| 5 |
statements, but you have an exceedingly idealistic view of software |
| 6 |
development and particular OS' perceived security. [Insert project |
| 7 |
here] may have a slogan, but the developers are still human and thus |
| 8 |
still make mistakes and are inherently lazy. Short of being powered |
| 9 |
by unicorn farts, there is no way any reasonably complex system can |
| 10 |
approach that ideal. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
In regard to your philosophy of updates, do you build a wall and not |
| 13 |
defend it? Do you plant a garden and not water it? In the same |
| 14 |
light, no system can be "permanently" secured. Safes are rated by the |
| 15 |
amount of time it would take a dedicated, skilled cracker to open it; |
| 16 |
none are ever deemed uncrackable. If you want more time, you purchase |
| 17 |
[or build] one that better matches your needs. System security is no |
| 18 |
different. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
RB |
Archives