Open Source Security: Still a Myth
Subject:   An extremely flawed article
Date:   2004-09-17 11:23:22
From:   McAction
This was very disappointing to read on oreillynet.
1) Reputation is as valuable a motivator as money. No developer wants their project to be thought of as insecure. Microsoft's biggest problem and the cause of their imminent downfall is that no one trusts them.

2) There is NO guarantee that propriety software developers run these stringent audits the author fantasizes about. FOSS may be guilty as charged, but so is EVERYONE else.

3) The not-so-subtle implication throughout the article that open source developers are necessarily average is insulting and obviously wrong. Average and below average developers are plentiful in the commercial software industry--anyone have a different experience?

4) Near the end of the article he claims that security has to be measured on a case-by-case basis yet he painted with a broad brush throughout the entire article. So, which is it?

5) Not yet "secure enough"? Daily we relearn that the pinnacle of proprietary development (Microsoft) causes more security headaches than any other vendor.

Overall, this was an extremely sad article. It just did not have any positive value.

1 to 1 of 1
  1. An extremely flawed article
    2004-09-17 11:26:14  McAction [View]

    • An extremely flawed article
      2004-09-17 11:58:34  Shane_Brodie [View]

    • I'm Not Convinced
      2004-09-17 11:55:30  chromatic | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

      • I'm Not Convinced
        2004-09-17 12:17:08  McAction [View]

        • I'm Not Convinced
          2005-01-18 21:03:45  musnat [View]

1 to 1 of 1