This is getting quite a lot of publicity and Telkom won't like the implications.
I suspect that they are already hatching (sorry) schemes of which Terry Thomas would be proud.
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The model was always marketing garbage anyway. However what you should understand is that the question is not "security" as such rather "who's security". Microsoft cares somewhat about the security of it's large and or strategic paying customers of which you are not one.
Yes, I understand that.
However this model is often trotted out as a reason why Windows would have a superior security record to linux had linux similar desktop saturation levels. In other words, if linux was as popular as Windows then, because the source is freely available for any hacker to study, it stands to reason that linux would be far easier to design malware for.
I have honestly heard this argument put forward on a number of occasions but until now I had not been aware that the Windows source was, in all probability, not quite as safely under lock and key as I have been led to believe.
A) The Chinese government has preferential access to the Windows source code. As such they will always know a vulnerability you don't. If you are their enemy then it can never be an acceptable system.
Are you sure?
If this is true then it rather drives a coach and horses through the security-through-obscurity closed source security model.
The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.