Secure Coding mailing list archives
Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies
From: der Mouse <mouse () Rodents Montreal QC CA>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 00:41:45 +0100
I have no problems with someone pointing out flaws in XYZ product when compared to ABC product, provided:
a) they're an independent, uninvolved 3rd party and b) the two products are identical in feature, function, and purpose.
Speaking personally, I'd say or c) The comparison is honest about its bias. That is, I have nothing against "my product is better than their product, and here are some flaws theirs has but mine doesn't". I have trouble with it only when it's disguised as an unbiased comparison. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Current thread:
- White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies Kenneth R. van Wyk (Apr 29)
- Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies dtalk-ml (Apr 29)
- RE: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies Dave Paris (Apr 30)
- Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies der Mouse (Apr 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies Jeremy Epstein (Apr 29)
- Re: Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies James Walden (Apr 30)
- Re: Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies Tad Anhalt (Apr 30)
- Re: Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies ljknews (Apr 30)
- Re: Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies Glenn and Mary Everhart (May 03)
- Re: Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies Crispin Cowan (May 03)
- Re: Re: White paper: "Many Eyes" - No Assurance Against Many Spies Tad Anhalt (May 04)