jdow wrote: > > And the first time a Fedora Core release is hacked Red Hat goes out of > business. Is this your goal? (Mind you, there are days when I have > uttered enough unkind words Fedora-wards that I'd applaud the concept. > Note, there are not as many such days as there are days I've felt the > urge to disembowel somebody on the Microsoft campus - which would be > too kind for some of them such as the doofus who invented "Clippy.") > Why? Did they produce software with a design flaw? Was the box cracked because of software they wrote, because of software from an upstream vendor, or because someone change the default configuration to an insecure one? Did they know about a bug, and hide the fact, trying for security by obscurity because it would be too hard to fix? There is a difference between providing support for software written by others, and selling software your company wrote. there is a difference between designing an OS to be secure, and designing an OS with security as an afterthought. You keep ignoring the difference between a design flaw, and an implantation defect. Why should it be different for the software industry? If you design a lawn mower without proper safety guards, you are liable. If a wheel falls off because someone forgot to tighten a nut, the person who put the wheel on is liable. By your logic, both cases are the same. The company who built the lawn mower is liable, and to the same degree. this type of logic is part of the reason Microsoft has been able to ship defective products for so long. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
