What's the matter with Open Source?

Pagina 2/4
1 | | 3 | 4

Van anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

afbeelding van anonymous

29-12-2002, 22:39

Maybe it should Wink But this is the off-topic forum, isn't it Tongue

Besides I specifically reacting to your [QOUTE]Too bad no one else joins this conversation[/QOUTE] Smile

Van Bart

Paragon (1423)

afbeelding van Bart

29-12-2002, 22:54

Ah well.. At least you joined the conversation... Have anything of value to add to the original thread ? Wink

Van snout

Ascended (15187)

afbeelding van snout

29-12-2002, 23:00

In my opinion.. I don't understand how open source sofware can offer decent security. If everyone, even hackers, can look into the source code. It seems to me that it's a lot easier to find the weak spots. On the other hands, more people are solving security issues... hmz...

Van Sylvester

Champion (398)

afbeelding van Sylvester

29-12-2002, 23:14

What about the costs ? lots of people use open source software because it's free Smile and If you want a extra feature you can build it your self Smile

Van DarQ

Paragon (1038)

afbeelding van DarQ

29-12-2002, 23:26

open source has 1 big problem..and it has been PROVED!

opensource is very cheap to purchase but it costs more in long term for maintenance costs.

Van Sander

Ambassador (1845)

afbeelding van Sander

30-12-2002, 00:02

Yeah, proved by a group financed by Microsoft.

Van DarQ

Paragon (1038)

afbeelding van DarQ

30-12-2002, 00:27

bullshit. open source is usually less maintainable then pricey software is.

Van anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

afbeelding van anonymous

30-12-2002, 01:30

Mozilla is better maintainable than Netscape was.

Linux is better maintainable than Windows (just check how many security flaws there are in Microsoft products).

And the best example: my own closed-source software is the least maintainable of all! Tongue

(And no, I'm not joining this discussion even though it looks like it ^^Wink

Van mth

Champion (484)

afbeelding van mth

30-12-2002, 04:42

I think the essence of open source is freedom for the user. If you want a new feature, you can get anyone to implement it; you're not tied to whoever made the software. You decide when you want to upgrade, not the software company. You don't have to trust the programmers blindly, instead you can have anyone check the source for backdoors.

Basically, having exclusive rights to the source is power. And power is often abused.

open source has 1 big problem..and it has been PROVED!

opensource is very cheap to purchase but it costs more in long term for maintenance costs.

I don't think you can make such a statement about open source in general. Only about a specific open source package compared to a specific closed source package. Even in the latter case, look carefully at the details: often switching from closed source to open source is examined, which includes training for people to learn a new software package. If you have to choose between an open source package and a closed source package in a situation where you are running neither, the costs are different.

By the way, for anything except mathematics, I have some reservations about things that are "proven". Statistical evidence always has a margin of error (typically around 5%) and is easy to misinterpret, especially if the researcher is biased (which is not uncommon, they're only human after all). Finally there is ofcourse the media, where statements are simplified, often by people that are not experts on the subject they write about. In the case of research such a simplification can lead to too-general or even wrong conclusions.

There are huge differences between open source packages. I've seen code that is very well written and I've seen code that is so bad, I'm amazed it works at all. I think the same is true for closed source, but you only get to see parts of it if you happen to work for the company that wrote it.

In my opinion.. I don't understand how open source sofware can offer decent security. If everyone, even hackers, can look into the source code. It seems to me that it's a lot easier to find the weak spots. On the other hands, more people are solving security issues... hmz...

With open source, anyone can find weak spots easier: both trustworthy people and people that are up to no good. Usually the former find it first, because their number is larger. What is important, is that after a weak spot is found, it is often fixed quickly. Too many closed source companies wait a long time fixing problems after they are found, but not exploited in the wild.

When I'm looking for services where security matters, I prefer modular approaches to do-it-all programs. Everything you don't run, is one security risk less. Also, you can greatly reduce the damage of a security flaw by running services with the minimal set of privileges they need. For example, I prefer Postfix and TinyDNS to the better-known alternatives Sendmail and Bind.

If you want to see open source in action, look at openMSX. We have been able to do quite a bit in only 1.5 years of development. That was possible because of code donations from people who are/were working on other emulators (including Marcel de Kogel, Alex Wulms, Sean Young and Frits Hilderink), code that was already open sourced (including the OPLL emulation and libraries such as SDL) and because unlike most MSX emulators it is developed by a team instead of a single person.

By the way, if you're a Java programmer, check out the open source software produced by Apache's Jakarta Project jakarta.apache.org. They've got anything from an XML parser to a Java bytecode manipulation library, from a project builder to a servlet engine.

Van snout

Ascended (15187)

afbeelding van snout

31-12-2002, 02:12

Still, a lot of open source software shows nasty fixes by underexperienced developers. Most open source projects could use a little more management. And maybe the source should only be open to a limited ammount of people. This to ensure the quality of the final product and to prevent security issues.

Pagina 2/4
1 | | 3 | 4