🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug17.033022.273@hemlock.cray.com> marc@hemlock.cray.com (Marc Bouron) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug17.010336.4750@uwm.edu>, bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
>> From article <7796821@MVB.SAIC.COM>, by "Phillip E. Parker" <PPARKER@TWSUVM.UC.TWSU.EDU>:
>> > I don't understand: how is running PD software risky if the user has access
>> > to files he is not supposed to show to anyone? Specifically, why is it more
>> > risky than running Wordperfect etc.?
>> > 
>> Running any software is risky. However I feel that commerical software
>> companies are less likely to produce code that has trojan horse code in it.
>
>Funny you should say that...  In an article at the weekend in a most reputable
>British newspaper, it was alleged that some software houses were deliberately
>introducing errors and `time bombs' into their software, some simple, some 
>malicious, in order to secure future "business" from their clients.  (Extortion, 
>basically.)
>
>[M][a][r][c]

And over the years there have been some really charming bits of code 
inserted by programmers who suspect that they're about to be fired.....

However, everyone in this thread has missed the real distinction between
commercial software and PD software.  One type has somebody to
sue over problems and the other doesn't.  If this distinction is unclear
to you, try looking at it from the viewpoint of a manager who knows full
well that he doesn't have the knowledge to make technical judgment calls
on this; as a fallback position he'll pick the one where there is a nice,
clean legal relationship with somebody who takes responsibility for the
performance of the software.

--Jon Radel