>>>'those' open source people always crack me up. they complaine about the unsecure/dangerous MS products - but yet open source are the most unsecure programs by definition itself.
>>
>>
>>Hi Gunnar. This statement is simply not correct. Why do you think this? Is it because you think a compiled propriety program is secure because no one can see the source code? If so then you are mistaken.
>
>Just playing devil's advocate here... Closed source has some 'security through obscurity' benefits, it's likely a case of trial an error, or decompiling the program to get the source code, to find a hole. Open source removes that last barrier, they can simply download the source code.
>
>Open Source's security advocates claim that many eyes will discover and report flaws. The popularly bashed closed source OS has millions more users (and hackers) doing the same thing. Any hole obscure enough to be found only by hackers isn't going to be reported in either case.
>
>Not even going to mention the problems with getting users to apply patches...


Hi Chris. As an interesting article you may want to look at:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/