an ominous comment

alan at clueserver.org alan at clueserver.org
Thu Jul 16 12:49:26 PDT 2015


> On 7/16/15 11:44 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Shelley <shelley at misanthropia.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On July 16, 2015 10:24:23 AM "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/16/15 7:51 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:02:31AM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>>> In a lot of ways, this is an elegant solution and could arguably be
>>>>>> much more secure than desktop apps in Windows.  Assuming your
>>>>> Lol, is this positive or negative argument?
>>>>>
>>>>> it can hardly be less secure than windoze imho.
>>>> Cypherpunks + Windows, what do you think?
>>> It's making me break out in hives, stop it!  :p
>>>
>>> *shudder*
>> The bazillion lines of effectively unaudited code in opensource
>> kernels and software should have the same effect upon you.
>
> I personally have audited quite a bit of FOSS (and enough spot checkers
> can get pretty good coverage), but not one line of
> proprietary Microsoft, Oracle, or Apple code.  Your fears may be
> misplaced.

Large companies regularly scan their open source (and proprietary code)
with Black Duck's ProtexIP software. That product shows if code is
"borrowed" from other places.  They also have open source tools that do
similar things.

The idea that open source is filled with stolen code is FUD.





More information about the cypherpunks mailing list