Greetings,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Rajagopal Swaminathan > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Excuse me. IT should be 0%. > > You are correct. It should be. However, it often isn't. What does > happen is that with closed source software you default to trusting > that the vendor has done everything right. The fact that you do not > have access to the source code can encourage and provide incentive for > ugly code flows. > >> It means that open source community is "passable" or IOW is worse > > The difference between that and open source is that you have access to > the source code. There are vendors who analyse application source code > (Coverity, Blackduck etc) and, you can choose to undertake > investigation yourself if you are competent, capable and know what you > are doing. The fact that code that is pushed to a publicly available > repository is "forever on the internet" is a remarkable motivator to > do things the right way or, at least tell people that you have a piece > that is currently ugly but will be revised. So, the evolution from > "passable" to beautiful is transparent and collaborative. > > Now, the question remains around which model of software development > would you default your trust on. > > Please check you savings bank, if it has a proper chronological pass book printing system module. And tell me if it is proper. mine is not. -- Regards, Rajagopal _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
