>> As anyone can create and market a distribution, it's not far-fetched to imagine a version subsidized and supported by organizations that may not have U.S. or other government interests at heart.
This is really a funny argument! Why should the government choose a distribution from a company, which they can't trust? And why should it be easier to undermine the government-security with an completely open-sourced product (where many eyes can always view the source) than with a closed source product (where maybe no one outside the company can check the source at all)? I now have to read the rest of the article, but the first few lines seem not very objective!
Slashdot Mirror
>> As anyone can create and market a distribution, it's not far-fetched to imagine a version subsidized and supported by organizations that may not have U.S. or other government interests at heart.
This is really a funny argument! Why should the government choose a distribution from a company, which they can't trust? And why should it be easier to undermine the government-security with an completely open-sourced product (where many eyes can always view the source) than with a closed source product (where maybe no one outside the company can check the source at all)? I now have to read the rest of the article, but the first few lines seem not very objective!