> -----Original Message----- > From: Denstizzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:43 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows > > There are people you pay to administer it. Same as anything else. > We've been over this before, however. Free don't mean Free. > Expensive don't mean expensive. Well, you know. That whole idea. > > Nick, the source code can directly tell you it's secure, that's what > all source code could do. Only one way takes decompilers, and > it's illegal to contribute.
One of my few problems with the Open Source movement (not Open Source software mind you) is this idea. The fact that everybody CAN look at the source isn't, to me, the issue. The number of people that actually examine the source of a large project like Linux or Apache is incredibly tiny. This is for the simple reason that the number of people that actually have the ability to understand the source is incredibly tiny compared to number that need the functionality provided. For the vast majority of users there is essentially no difference between open and closed source in this respect: when something goes wrong they look to the vendor to fix it. I wouldn't be at all surprised, in fact, if the number of people seriously working on, say, the Apache codebase was about equivalent to the number of people working on the IIS codebase. Basically all I'm saying is that the ability to look at the source is important to very few people. The basic requirements are the same for both open and closed source in any segment. Things like security, usability, productivity, performance, etc. Now you can make an argument that open source, for example, improves security because there are some very smart people looking at it. That's fine, arguable (apparently infinitely arguable), but fine. But the idea that a problem in open source software is less problematic than in closed source because "you can just fix it yourself" always strikes me as completely silly. Where this argument DOES work well is in programming: where the open source component extends an environment that the end user is expected to be somewhat familiar with. I'm all for "open sourcing", say, CFML or JavaScript or Python - there's a legitimate possibility that the person using the code WILL modify it. But as the gulf grows wider (as in the difference between using a web browser and building one) the "open source" aspect of open source becomes less and less meaningful to more and more users. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:227289 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
