Re: @Eadon (was:ANY closed source software might have secret back doors) (@ jake)++
"You don't actually understand the issue, do you? Did you read & understand ken's article?"
It's not rocket science. The 'Trusting trust article" says that you can't trust any system that you haven't created yourself from the ground up, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think my comment makes this clear enough.
"My comment is arguing that if you don't actually understand what you are talking about, it's probably better to keep your mouth shut and be assumed ignorant, than open it and prove your ignorance to all and sundry."
Would you be so kind as to point out exactly what parts of my comment make you think I "don't actually understand" what I'm talking about?. If you don't, I'll consider your answer just as a nursery-level ad hominem.
"Reductio ad absurdum rarely works in this forum."
Or so you say. It would help if you were able to explain why exactly this particular 'reductio' is wrong. Otherwise, other readers might come to the conclusion that you're FOS.
"ken's not dead. He works for the gootards."
If you think that when I wrote "some ITs pook that died of old age in 1997." (sorry for the misplaced whitespace :-) I was making a reference to Ken Thompson, then you're seriously lacking reading comprehension.
To clarify my point:
- Security can be greatly improved by taking partial measures, without the costs jumping to infinity. That's why I used the reductio ab absurdum argument. IT professionals usually try to get to a compromise between costs and results. Just like everybody else. Using FOSS can give you a big advantage security-wise for a relatively low cost, but there is no such a thing as '100% safe', at least in IT.
- I can´t totally subscribe what Eadon said, but he is at least partially right, and IMHO some of the arguments you made against his comment are quite wrong, and I was just pointing that out.
PD: Seriously, jake, why all the hate?