Microsoft: Vista won't get a backdoor 3276
I found some groups that are much more suitable than COLA. alt.destroy.microsoft and alt.microsoft.sucks I'm sure that there are more just like it so I think that...
Microsoft has their "Fast Facts" site, it's advertized on nearly every page that even mentions Linux, and provides as much pro-microsoft information as they can possibly get...
Erik Funkenbusch
Yup.
So, when the guys says there is "no backdoor" and over "his dead body," he really can't be so certain, now can he? And when you say that it would be discovered quickly, you were lying, right?
They are speaking in a mode that is not possible. They can not know for sure. So they are either lying or ignorant. Either way, it isn't something I'd trust.
Trust without verification is not trust, it is faith, and faith is not the basis of sound decisions.
Lin¿nut What Erik does not realize is that there is cause and effect. Take OSX-apple as example. Until quite recently OSX was mantioned very rarely, and then usually in a tone neither positive...
"Trust" and "verification" go hand in hand. Living in the real world, as we do, the "trust" one buttigns to a particular object is directly proportionate to the ability to verify, even if that verification is by proxy.
Trust is sometimes based on the "they can't all be lying" principle. When we higher a contractor, we look for references. If someone can provide a good number of references, they can't all be lying, right?
With Microsoft, we have to have faith that what they say is true, because we do not have independent agencies verifying that they are, in fact, being truthful. With open source, we have a huge number of independent agents working on and verifying the code. The system has proved trustworthy. Microsoft, on the other hand, has proved not to be trustworthy.
But far more difficult and under the scrutiny of outsiders or have nothing to lose and everything to gain from exposing the secret.
Time for everyone to leave now
Linux Advocacy from Newsgroups