|
From: jt <jt@ee.net> > | Leif thinks - time to begin to open source OS/400... > | Let's not put the alligators back in this swamp, huh ? > > Although I agree with Leif on this particular issue, I agree with your > sentiment as well. > > I view opening the *security* code to be a lose-lose > proposition. But, looking at increasing mindshare more than anything, I > don't know why IBM wouldn't want to release the rest of the source for > CPF/OS/400 (or at least V4R5). If a system's security would suffer by having the "security" code being open, then the system is not secure to begin with (maybe that is what you are implying). A system gets *more* secure by having outsiders inspect it (and improve it - maybe indirectly by forcing the vendor to do it). Security by obscurity is false security. Now, how many times do I have to say this?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
