[ShadowAce]

but probably allow hackers even more info to attack windows.

I look at software the same way cryptologists look at encryption algorythms--they should both be open for inspection, but still be secure.

[RS]

"...they should both be open for inspection, but still be secure."

... and Beer should taste great and be less filling...

[Still Thinking]

I look at software the same way cryptologists look at encryption algorythms--they should both be open for inspection, but still be secure.

That's my outlook too, but you almost have to build that kind of a culture from day one. Judging from past experience, I don't think Microsoft runs that way under the hood. It's hard to build that kind of culture (and product) after the fact.

While I may not prefer some of their products and some of their customer service policies, they are a private business and I don't think they deserve the abuse they've gotten from the US and EWW governments. I am free to vote with my feet and buy Linux if I want. As long as there are alternatives and they remain legal, the governments should leave Microsoft alone.

This rationale doesn't apply to the legal shenanigans of the RIAA, MPAA, etc., and so those guys and their tactics REALLY piss me off.

[CodeToad]

"I look at software the same way cryptologists look at encryption algorythms--they should both be open for inspection, but still be secure.
"

Well, then you don't know much about cryptologists. The NSA has many algos they use and are classified Top Secret and above.