Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 26, 2003 03:40 AM
Actually, this is quite related.
One of the main arguments for open-source in government is national security. You never know when some "feature" of closed-source software which you were not aware of will expose information which is supposed to be secret. The story you linked to is a (minor) example of this. With open-source, the source code can be audited for security issues like this, backdoors, and other potential problems.
This does not imply that open-source software is perfect, but rather that the user (in this case, the government) has _control_ over the situation. They can potentially control every aspect of the software which they use. Handing that control over to a private, closed-source software company (God forbid, a _foreign_ closed-source software company) doesn't sound like a very good idea!
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Microsoft Word bites Tony Blair in the butt
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 26, 2003 03:40 AMOne of the main arguments for open-source in government is national security. You never know when some "feature" of closed-source software which you were not aware of will expose information which is supposed to be secret. The story you linked to is a (minor) example of this. With open-source, the source code can be audited for security issues like this, backdoors, and other potential problems.
This does not imply that open-source software is perfect, but rather that the user (in this case, the government) has _control_ over the situation. They can potentially control every aspect of the software which they use. Handing that control over to a private, closed-source software company (God forbid, a _foreign_ closed-source software company) doesn't sound like a very good idea!
#