From: Thees Peereboom 

Geo,

>I don't agree. The reason I don't agree is because I have yet to find
>software that they claimed was secure and couldn't be hacked. Everything can
>be hacked, it's just a matter of getting the right people hacking at it.
>Some things are easier than others but everything has bugs.

A hack is a matter of time - I agree. As long as the period between release
and hack is long enough, you could call it secure, right?

>Price/Quality/Service, these three things are the key to becoming a market
>leader. Pretty much in that order. So I agree it's a balancing act but if it
>doesn't qualify as "good enough" then it's not going to sell.

To sell? To whom? Doncha know - software is *preloaded* these days, that's
everybody's using MS Office.

>I don't see much difference. I've met some of the NT team and they really
>did impress me both in knowledge and attitude about the quality of their
>work. But those people don't write all the code in the product. There are
>lamers on the NT team as well. I figure it's the same for Linux.

Exactly, neither do I. So why would OS with its full disclosure be worse
than any 'named' software?

>The only time I think this really makes a difference is when it becomes
>obvious, as was the case with OS/2, that the corporate attitude will not
>allow the product to succeed. I think it's also important to realize that
>can happen with any product including OSS and shareware, for example atguard
>or neotrace or even Netscape where they get bought up by some big corp.

Yes and again; isn't this in favor of OS? Since OS isn't owned by a vendor,
it hardly can be sold, right?

>Imagine being an ISP totally committed to Netscape (as you said, dependent)
>only to have it bought up by their biggest competitor, AOL. I mean could
>anyone here fault Klaus if AOL offered him $500mil for Knoppix and so he
>sold it to them?

Again, Geo, with OS you don't run such a risk - if a software vendor sells
his business, he basically sells two things. First he sells his rights to
the app(s) and second he sells his customerbase (and, if he's smart, he
sells his building separately). All clients get a vendor they never choose
and might turn into a direction he doesn't concur with.

With OS software at least you know you won't get sold and you have at least
as much influence to the product as with named software. Moreover you have
the source at your disposal, if you want it changed, you hire a developer
to change it for you. Makes you less vulnerable to hacks, BTW.

- Thees Peereboom

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4