Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGamm
Your credentials and experience do not change the fact that a larger audience of relatively inexperienced programmers now have the capabilities to attack those who choose to go it their own with an open source project.
|
This assertion rests on the flawed assumption that most cracking is done by programmers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGamm
Are you suggesting that the majority of open source projects are of higher quality than closed source programs?
|
Did I even hint at such a suggestion? No, I did not.
However, I will submit that open source has the greater
opportunity to be of higher quality owing to 2 factors:
1) It is less likely to fall prey to the "good enough" standard that most work-for-hire is subject to; and,
2) It is more easily & quickly remediated when it is found to have problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGamm
What exactly are you suggesting? That it's better to righteously defend the open source movement with zealotry rather than focus on it's flaws and look towards a better solution?
|
What I do not merely suggest, but strongly maintain, is that zealotry serves no cause well, including that of those who would dismiss open source as being of dubious value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGamm
In any event... The open source community should follow the lead of some of the more well known closed source vendors and offer to service the software which they build. Many of them do. All of them need to. Closed source or open source being irrelevant.
|
And, many of the closed source vendors would be equally well so advised.
It is sufficient to examine the quality of that most well known purveyor of proprietary software, Microsoft, to understand that whether or not the source code is publicly available is hardly a marker re. quality.