The vast majority of development work on most big open source projects is actually done by paid professionals,
Hm, perhaps for some projects. I'm not sure how true this statement is for the Linux kernel though. Though in some ways the kernel is special because it is very modular and can have less centralised control, whereas OpenOffice might need to be more tightly controlled.
I submit that most of the best open source projects are of the high quality that they are because of the quality of individual developers they attract, in both skill and attitude, and not because of any mass appeal and wide-scale code review.
Hm, interesting. Perhaps the quality of open source is largely due to the way the community works. People do it in their own time so want to produce good work. The code is available for all which also produces additional pressure for it to be good (peer pressure). People like doing things for other people (it gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling), so bugs and features get added for the community.
Contrast this with commercial development. It's driven by deadlines and money. Whilst code quality is still important, deadlines are often more important. The code is written for money, which is a less powerful motivator than because I want to.
I'd concede that the inclusive nature of Open Source development is more helpful than the mass code review aspect.
Of course companies that contribute code must do so in the spirit of Open Source, just look at the early days of Mozilla. The source was open, but development was still driven and controlled very tightly by Netscape, which didn't gain the project any friends. Open Source projects must embrace outside help if they're to get it.
As for Open Source being more bug free or secure, I still disagree. When someone that is smarter than the developer that put the piece of code together can see it, they can also see how to compromise it.
So bugs, yeah it probably helps, but security no.
Well, I'd say that there are more people willing to fix security issues than exploit them. Of course, those wanting to exploit the code are probably more likely to be looking over it for holes. But once a hole is found and exploited, then the white-hat hacker machine can come into play and fix it. Since users have got a direct interest in keeping the code secure, security holes tend to be fixed quickly, which doesn't always happen in the commercial world because of market pressures, beurocracy, etc.
I don't think the track record of Microsoft products really helps the case that closed source is more secure...
And that would be Linux, I suppose? Because no bugs ever creep into Linux, and there's never been a security flaw found.
That's the point! Bugs are much more likely to be found in an open system such as Linux because of the nature of Open source development - all people using the software can reporting / fixing bugs, not just the limited few inside a company. The parent poster is actually complimenting MS testing, just saying that it can never be as good as open source because of the numbers involved.
Gee, a group of 5 people can land a choper on that platform and basically take over the darn thing by force. And then, what do I do? I would have totally lost everything in there.
I read in the New Scientist that if the Sealand was ever raided then the owners would destroy the servers. OK, you would loose your data but atleast it wouldn't fall in to someone else's hands.
> This was released days ago. I _do not_ mean to troll, but this really is rather latesom.
No, I think it's great. Much better than announcing the day it's released and then having moz.org become slashdotted. This way the mirrors are up to speed before the masses decend...
Slashdot Mirror
Hee hee, gotta love how the parent has been modded "informative"...
DDMMYYYY is some Euro thing that makes no sense. You don't speak dates like this: "Meet me 17 April 2004." It's not natural.
Well, actually you'll find that alot of people in the UK will say "Meet me on the 17th of April, 2004". There is a world outside the US, you know.
Insert you own SCO joke here about charging a licence fee for using Pi...
Is this what will happen with SCO vs IBM too? Not sure I like this prediction...
Hm, perhaps for some projects. I'm not sure how true this statement is for the Linux kernel though. Though in some ways the kernel is special because it is very modular and can have less centralised control, whereas OpenOffice might need to be more tightly controlled.
Hm, interesting. Perhaps the quality of open source is largely due to the way the community works. People do it in their own time so want to produce good work. The code is available for all which also produces additional pressure for it to be good (peer pressure). People like doing things for other people (it gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling), so bugs and features get added for the community.
Contrast this with commercial development. It's driven by deadlines and money. Whilst code quality is still important, deadlines are often more important. The code is written for money, which is a less powerful motivator than because I want to.
I'd concede that the inclusive nature of Open Source development is more helpful than the mass code review aspect.
Of course companies that contribute code must do so in the spirit of Open Source, just look at the early days of Mozilla. The source was open, but development was still driven and controlled very tightly by Netscape, which didn't gain the project any friends. Open Source projects must embrace outside help if they're to get it.
Well, I'd say that there are more people willing to fix security issues than exploit them. Of course, those wanting to exploit the code are probably more likely to be looking over it for holes. But once a hole is found and exploited, then the white-hat hacker machine can come into play and fix it. Since users have got a direct interest in keeping the code secure, security holes tend to be fixed quickly, which doesn't always happen in the commercial world because of market pressures, beurocracy, etc.
I don't think the track record of Microsoft products really helps the case that closed source is more secure...
> This was released days ago. I _do not_ mean to troll, but this really is rather latesom.
No, I think it's great. Much better than announcing the day it's released and then having moz.org become slashdotted. This way the mirrors are up to speed before the masses decend...
...Carl