Link Courtesy of Stephen Chin.
Monthly Archive for February, 2004
I just read a post by the web's most prolific Windows-zealot, Paul Thurrott, about how closed-source is definitely more secure than open-source. He links to an eWeek article which concludes by saying "Open source doesn't make code secure, nor does closing source make it insecure.", yet he takes that as an opportunity to laud closed-source software for its security and bag out open-source software for its insecurity. The fact is, that both open- and closed-source software can have security holes and problems. Take Microsoft, for example. Windows is closed-source, yet has had many, many, many, many … holes and security problems over the years. Whether this was because of shoddy programming, poor code reviews/audits, or whatever, security was poor. Granted, they are focusing on it more now, which is good to see. On the other hand, Sun's Solaris is purportedly rock-solid, with very little security holes. Much of it is closed-source, which gives merit to the argument that closed-source software is secure.
On the other hand, open-source software has the opportunity to be just as secure as Solaris, for example, but also to be extremely insecure and riddled with holes and bugs. The author of the eWeek article mentions that a hole was recently found in OpenSSL, which had been there for years. Now, the whole point of open-source is that the source is out there for everyone to see, so that if a problem is found, it can be patched and an updated version released quickly, so that problems do not occur. Whether this occurs depends on the developers and how perceptive/experienced/dedicated they are.
The truth of the matter is, I don't think closed- or open-source software in general is any more secure than the other, as it ultimately depends on who is doing the programming and what kind of audits there are on that code.
I went and saw "The Passion of the Christ" last night. Despite the fact that I'm not Christian or religious, I actually enjoyed the film (as much as it could be enjoyed). I thought it was very moving and extremely well done, with great camera-work. I've never seen the crucifixion portrayed before in a play, movie or otherwise, and I found this very gory and violent, but at the same time true to what I would have imagined it to be.
There's been a bit of an uproar about the movie, with people calling it too violent, anti-Semitic, so on and so on, and I can see where they might be coming from. It is very violent and graphic. There's one scene where Jesus is being caned and lashed by two Roman grunts, and they're obviously enjoying it. This scene lasted for at least 15 minutes, and by the end of it, Jesus was lying in a pool of his own blood, his whole body covered in open wounds and lashings. While it was quite gruesome, I don't believe that there was any other way to really show the strength of Jesus.
The crucifixion scene is the same too. You see Jesus carrying his cross all the way through the city, while being flogged by the same Roman grunts who revel in beating this man they don't even know. Many times he falters, but he eventually gathers the strength to get up, with the help of a bystander who carries the cross with him. You see the nails being driven into Jesus' hands and feet close-up, and watch the blood spurt from these wounds, as well his torment as he hangs from the cross. This scene is gory, too, but I don't feel it could have been done any other way without detracting from the message of the movie.
I don't believe the film is anti-Semitic, despite what many people are saying. The Pharisees are portrayed as greedy, power-hungry priests that are afraid of the power of this one man, so they call on the mob, who is, by nature, fickle, to codemn him publicly. There is a scene in the Governor's compound where the head priest is given the choice to let Jesus or a cold-blooded murderer free. The head priest lets the murderer free, and condemns Jesus to crucifixion, which the angry mob supports. Another scene, earlier in the movie, evokes feelings of outrage as Jesus is dragged before a council of the priests, after being beaten by the guards of the Pharisees, and charged with blasphemy. He is beaten, spat upon and pummeled to the ground, all in the view of these priests, by the guards and the common people. The easy thing to do, after watching these scenes, is to say "The Jews did it!", but that's missing the entire point of the film. Jesus says that the people do not know what they do in condemning him, and asks them to be forgiven, even though he is bound to die because of what they've done. If he can forgive them and show compassion, then they should be able to do that in return. Apart from that aspect, and from a purely literal perspective, it's not anti-Semitic if it actually happened that way. It would be akin to saying a movie about the holocaust is anti-German!
Enough ranting… All in all, I enjoyed the film.
Commentary of the film here.
