can't evaluate > not enough funds to evaluate In other words, with proprietary sw, at least SOMEBODY evaluated it and placed their seal/name on it. With open source, you are relying on a hope that somebody out there…
yes, but I'm talking about RNG from likes of Microsoft or Apple...
Given things like the Debian OpenSSL fiasco and Heartbleed, can we honestly put as much faith into open source crypto as it's well-funded proprietary counterparts? I honestly prefer open source and recognize the problem…
> Otherwise it feels like some of that autogenerated SEO-style spam, which Google should penalize. I assumed Google already recognized these near-duplicates and are penalizing them
I ain't switching from Perl 5.8 to golang until a shared hosting provider becomes available.
can't evaluate > not enough funds to evaluate In other words, with proprietary sw, at least SOMEBODY evaluated it and placed their seal/name on it. With open source, you are relying on a hope that somebody out there…
yes, but I'm talking about RNG from likes of Microsoft or Apple...
Given things like the Debian OpenSSL fiasco and Heartbleed, can we honestly put as much faith into open source crypto as it's well-funded proprietary counterparts? I honestly prefer open source and recognize the problem…
> Otherwise it feels like some of that autogenerated SEO-style spam, which Google should penalize. I assumed Google already recognized these near-duplicates and are penalizing them
I ain't switching from Perl 5.8 to golang until a shared hosting provider becomes available.