Ken Elliott wrote:
>>>Too bad it was like having a really secure lead balloon. It was
>
> interesting to look at, when it worked, but otherwise less than stellar. OS
> X is a major leap forward, in terms of utility, scalability, applicability,
> competitiveness, and stability. I really wouldn't know about older MacOS
> security, because I never had any reason to pay attention to it. The most
> secure vault in the world is useless if all it contains is costume jewelry.
>
>
> Well....
> It ran PhotoShop and Quark Xpress rather well. I'd hardly call it useless.
> It's very rare to see any publisher use anything else. Both Windows and
> Linux are way behind in professional publishing apps than even really old
> Macs. I agree OS X is far better on most things, but it is not without it's
> drawbacks.
>
> But my point is that closed source isn't _always_ insecure, and open source
> is not _automatically_ more secure. It's the review/fix process and a good
> architecture that brings about stability. If MS opened their source, but
> didn't accept fixed code from users, I doubt much would change. Even if
> they did, could we really workaround some of the flaws in the architecture.
>
> Ken Elliott
>
I think this was in response to me. I've been out of town for a while, so I
didn't see this until now.
Yes, MacOS ran certain applications quite well. Unfortunately for MacOS, they
ran just as well on other OSes as well.
I'd like to know how exactly "both Windows and Linux are way behind in
professional publishing apps", considering I have been running both Photoshop
and Quark XPress for years on Windows machines and they work every bit as well
as, if not better than, they do on a pre-X Mac.
It's true, however, that there's far more to security and stability than simply
opening source. In fact, opening source is actually a security failing, until
input from the open source community starts to have positive effects (which can
take time, or may in fact never happen, depending on the interest the specific
project might generate). Linux is more secure than Windows (when used properly)
because of the absurd number of man-hours put into testing its failings and
working out solutions to them, not because it's OSS. The fact that it's OSS,
however, is the reason so many man-hours have been put into it. Chicken and
egg, as 'twere.
-- Chad Perrin (apotheon .com .net .org) http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/sig-block.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:27:33 EDT