[BACK]Return to press.html CVS log [TXT][DIR] Up to [local] / www

Diff for /www/Attic/press.html between version 1.77 and 1.78

version 1.77, 2000/04/06 16:55:44 version 1.78, 2000/04/06 16:58:44
Line 28 
Line 28 
 <h3><font color=#e00000>English press coverage</font></h3><p>  <h3><font color=#e00000>English press coverage</font></h3><p>
 <dl>  <dl>
   
 <h2>March, 2000</h2>  <h2>April, 2000</h2>
   
 <li><font color=#009000><strong>  <li><font color=#009000><strong>
 <a  <a
 href="http://securityportal.com/closet/closet20000329.html">Linux  
 is a security risk, I don't think so!</a>,  
 Security Portal, March 29, 2000  
 </strong></font><br>  
   
 <li><font color=#009000><strong>  
 <a  
 href="http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/200004/badpressedit">  href="http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/200004/badpressedit">
 Bad Press</a>,  Bad Press</a>,
 32Bits Online, April 2000  32Bits Online, April 2000
Line 49 
Line 42 
 <b>"If there is ONE definitive proof that the source code being opened up for  <b>"If there is ONE definitive proof that the source code being opened up for
 review provides the opportunity to create secure operating systems, OpenBSD  review provides the opportunity to create secure operating systems, OpenBSD
 is that proof."</b> (his emphasis)  is that proof."</b> (his emphasis)
   <p>
   
   <h2>March, 2000</h2>
   
   <li><font color=#009000><strong>
   <a
   href="http://securityportal.com/closet/closet20000329.html">Linux
   is a security risk, I don't think so!</a>,
   Security Portal, March 29, 2000
   </strong></font><br>
   
   Columnist Kurt Seifried uses OpenBSD's code audit as an example to
   refute a FUD piece on a major computer industry website that claims
   that Linux is a security risk because the bad guys can find the holes
   simply by reading the source code.
 <p>  <p>
   
 <li><font color=#009000><strong>  <li><font color=#009000><strong>
Legend:
Removed from v.1.77  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.78