Samuel ]slund samuel@Update.UU.SE
Fri Jul 12 15:32:01 2002

On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:58:09AM -0400, Adam Pavelec wrote:
> > > The point whoever it was was trying to make is still valid.
> > > Free software is not equal to bugfree software, there might be a better
> > > chance that someone finds security holes and fixes them when the source
> > > is Free but to say that Free software has no bugs is foolishness.
> >
> > I did not say the point wasn't valid. But imho Adam didn't claim open
> > software was bugfree, either.
> That's exactly right.  In fact, the main purpose for posting the link to the
> news article was to bring the attention of the vulnerability to anyone who
> might still be using the affected software.  I have noticed that many GPG
> users on this list still use older versions of PGP for compatability and/or
> testing purposes.

I (and probably the other poster to) reacted to:
I am glad GnuPG is open to review by our community to aviod
these issues.
wich sounds like 'Free software do not have security holes', or atleast
'that could not have happend to Us'. Neither of those are true.

That I expect better stability and less trouble from Free software is 
not the issue.

Sorry, to pick on you. Information is good.