RE: OS/2 is FINALLY History (per IBM) :-(

| [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Leif Svalgaard
|


| 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?

We'll probably hafta agree to disagree, in part, Leif...  SURE, 400 security
could be improved by having eyes outside IBMers looking over the code.
(Don't know that'll ever happen.. but, to me anyway, trying to "force" the
vendor to do any given thing doesn't seem to be a step in a direction that
would help.)

However, giving EVERY single hacker on the planet the same opportunity is
not the way towards greater security.  That relies on the notion that those
trying to make the system secure are smarter and outnumber those who are
trying to crack the security.. neither of which I would rely on.

jt