> I don't think this is a good metaphor at all for the > problem we are discussing. But, for the sake of this > discussion, I'll go along with it for now.
Right on. I don't know how this could be compare to Closed Source/Open Source development model. I don't even think you could compare them. > Since you admitted that you are not the only person > with access to the plans (disgruntled employees), it > is possible that the plans to the fortress can be > leaked out. I have never seen the insides of a military environment(except on movies) but isn't everything on a "need-to-know" basis? Is everyone given the whole picture or is it hierarchial sturucture where those who are on top know everything but those at the bottom know next to nothing? > So, unless you (the General) are also an expert in > creating these further safeguards and methods (let's > assume you are not, you are already pretty busy), you > will have to rely on outside experts. > > So, it is not only better to rely on experts, it is > necessary. And yes, it is always better, since not > relying on experts is false or illusory security. Basically I think it comes down to who you can trust and who you can't. But for this "Fortress" situation, should the general let everyone know what the plans to the fortress is? NO. Instead of concentrating on plans for the fortress which provides its security, shouldn't the general be working on alternate plans to protect the tresure if the security is breached? "They will break upon this fortress like water on rock" you don't need to know plans for the fortress. they could very well be broken by brute force.
