Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Managing Innovation
- From: email@example.com (K. Ari Krupnikov)
- Date: 01 Oct 2003 01:35:21 -0700
- In-reply-to: <200310010238.h912cXG11631@dragon.flightlab.com>
- References: <3F7A25ED.firstname.lastname@example.org><830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1C6FFF8@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><200310010238.h912cXG11631@dragon.flightlab.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
- User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Joe English <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Tim Bray wrote:
> > Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > >>>Can we 'do the simplest thing that will possibly work'
> > >>>and still produce a secure system.
> > >>
> > >>Sure; viz Unix.
> > >
> > > This is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on XML-DEV.
> > Really? Which part? The assertion that Unix is basically simpler than
> > the alternatives, or the assertion that it achieves a good level of
> > security? I happen to think that both are true.
> I thought the proposition that Unix is "the simplest thing
> that will possibly work" was the funny part.
I didn't. All alternatives I know of are either more complicated or
less secure or both.
Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can loose
money betting on the outcome.