Fortune magazine article needs more info to be informative.

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:20:32PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:

> Thus, for all we readers know, Theo de Raadt gave Fortune lots of
> information to stand behind his claims and it just wasn't passed on to us.
> We simply don't know what really happened because the article is holding
> out on us.  If Fortune's readership is non-technical (as I'm guessing it
> is), then this article never should have been published by them.  They
> should have either taken the time to explain the technical parts to a lay
> audience or passed on the article entirely.

Based on similar comments he has made over the years, I suspect the article
accurately conveys the information presented to Fortune by Mr. de Raadt.

-- 
 - mdz