Leaked memos and drafts of important documents not meant for public consumption - though increasingly in the case of the latter readable through 'track changes' functionality in Word not being disabled - are nothing new.
When silicon.com saw the Office of Government Commerce's report on the use of open source software this week, apart from the main findings, we were intrigued by some of what had been left out from the final report - though, it should be said, not about to get too high and mighty with whoever sent out the information in that state.
Much of the technology media has this week reported on the government's stance, open-minded as it is towards open source software such as the Linux operating system.
But what might have been said? Our news story today compares what was published with what might have been - only, as with any leaked document, an organisation can always stand by its official line. That is to be expected.
An 'incendiary leaked memo' from a high-profile CEO to thousands of staffers can always be brushed aside as a bit of motivation for the troops and not necessarily the company line.
Any observer can only speculate as to how close the OGC, in this case, was to coming out and declaring open source clearly more secure than Windows. Linux, it ultimately declared, isn't "inherently more secure" because source code can be freely viewed but rather: "While some argue that many eyes lead to fewer security flaws, others argue that those wishing to exploit, or tamper with, open source code have an easier time than with closed source code."
It is not as if this one organisation has the ultimate answer to the proprietary v open source or Windows v Linux debates. But this week's report - which we encourage people to read here - will fan the flames on both sides.
Just don't expect to find any notes in the margins.
Comments
There is 1 comment. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
"While some argue that many eyes lead to fewer security flaws, others argue that those wishing to exploit, or tamper with, open source code have an easier time than with closed source code."
This is a worthless comment. A bit like "Some argue that the Earth is round, some argue that it must be flat". Crap like this does not belong in a report. The whole point of a report is that it evaluates differing views. A more useful statement would be "While most people who know nothing about security think that those wishing to exploit security weaknesses have an easier time with open source code, security experts (Bruce Schneier, ...) disagree. The experts are almost unanimous that open source is better for security than closed source".