Open Source Security: Still a Myth
Subject:   Summary of summary
Date:   2004-09-17 09:45:04
From:   chillhaze
Response to: Summary

With all due respect, I think your rebuttal could be summarized as follows:

I'm an open source supporter, and the author has gored my ox. Despite stating quite plainly that open source was no more insecure than 'commercial' software, just not better as some people have claimed, he must be wrong because ... well, just because.

I have an opinion that things are different, though I have no real proof to offer at this time.

I would prefer the author discuss the concept that 'commercial software != open source software', because I think that is more interesting.

I would also request the author consider this poorly fleshed-out example, which does not actually conflict with the article. My intuition is that somehow combining open source and "closed, professional development" would be somehow better than current practices, even though I can offer no reason for such an outcome.

Wouldn't a simple "You're wrong, dead wrong" have sufficed?

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • Correction
    2004-09-18 05:59:05  dscotson [View]

    I'm not sure who gored *your* ox, but if you want to rail incoherently against imaginary free software zealotry then carry on.

    I only ask that if you're going to directly quote me, then at least get the words correct. I was speculating about the combination of the mooted open source security advantages with "commercial, professional development" (as recommended by the original author) since the two concepts are clearly not mutually exclusive.

    Substituting 'closed' for 'commercial' makes the quote as confused as the rest of your response is on the distinction between the two concepts.