[olug] OT: security through antiquity

[Tony Reinke]

Hot Dogs as the ultimate Linux vs. Windows argument.  Wow, I bet Billy
Gates didn't see that coming.  I think this analogy might just be the
best one I have heard in a while.

Tony Reinke

DYNATRON tech wrote:
>> Tons of hot dogs are consumed everyday, but because they are familiar
>> we don't think about not knowing what is in them.
>>
>>     
>
> i know they contain some foul shit, that's why i don't eat them. also, i've
> never seen the proprietary recipe, so i have to assume that it's not
> something i would voluntarily eat.
>
> it might be tasty for the majority of consumers (i.e. windows fans), but me
> personally, i'd rather know what's in there, or at least have the ability to
> find out
>
> .
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Thomas D. Williamson <
> twilliam at inebraska.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Quoting DYNATRON tech <dynatron at gmail.com>:
>>
>>     
>>>> Anyway, Schneier's comment on the subject was that reviewed code was
>>>>         
>> more
>>     
>>>> secure than unreviewed code, even if binary exact.  I think it has more
>>>>         
>> to
>>     
>>>> do with a 'trust' and possibly psychological stuffs.
>>>>         
>>>
>>> it's because you know what you are getting.
>>>
>>> would you eat something if you didn't know what was in it?
>>>
>>>       
>> Tons of hot dogs are consumed everyday, but because they are familiar
>> we don't think about not knowing what is in them.
>>
>>     
>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Sam Tetherow <tetherow at shwisp.net>
>>>       
>> wrote:
>>     
>>>> Even if it didn't have malware, would you really want to go back to the
>>>> days of Trumpet WinSOCK?
>>>>
>>>> Sam Tetherow
>>>> Sandhills Wireless
>>>>
>>>> Phil Brutsche wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Will Langford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> I suppose ya could make an argument that 'through antiquity' is just
>>>>>>             
>> a
>>     
>>>>>> special case of 'through obscurity' ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> This particular article talks about IE5 running on... wait for it...
>>>>> Windows 3.1!
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows 3.1 has no security mechanisms what-so-ever and I'm sure that
>>>>> it's chock full of buffer overruns and stack overflows and ..., but
>>>>>           
>> how
>>     
>>>>> much malware will run outside of Win32?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's similar to one of the arguments for running MacOS or Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>> Tom Williamson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OLUG mailing list
>> OLUG at olug.org
>> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>