is open-soure REALLY more secure???

[nihil]

One aspect of open vs closed source that no one seems to have touched on so far is Corporate Perception.

I heard a saying a long time ago "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" I guess you could put "Microsoft" in the place of "IBM" these days?

The perceived notion is that "closed source" is contractually guaranteed whereas open source is not, therefore "must be inferior"

I would point out that IMHO and my experience, the "perception" of a CEO is reality, as far as we are concerned. They think they can sue, so they go for that option. I know this is BS, but how many CEOs do you know of who are aware of what "EULA" stands for? let alone read all the small print. At best you might get your money back..............no consequential losses, compensation for loss of earnings etc.

I have had very little success in getting freeware/shareware accepted in the workplace for exactly the same reason.

Basically if I said "Sun Solaris" they would say "Good idea Johnno" if I said "Linux", they would say "Johnno, you have been on the beer again"

Just a few thoughts

Cheers

[St1cky]

Think of it this way:
If you can see the defense of a fortress, you could easily fix every place where the possibility somone could slip in would be, but you could also use that same vulenrability to your advantage. Now, if you could not see it, you'd have to do some snooping around to find the area someone could get in, but it would not be fixed immediately, you would have to wait for someone to do the work you could do yourself.

Basically it's all up to how you feel about your operating system. If you trust Bill to take care of you and your computer(s), then just stay on top of the latest news from MS. If you'd rather take care of it yourself, find an open source OS.