Processors Motherboards Chipsets Memory Graphics Cards Storage Cases and Cooling Mobile Systems Displays Shows and Expos
Latest Sponsors

Powered By
Newegg
Tyan Motherboards
Corsair Memory
Western Digital Hard Drives
Red Hat Linux

PC Perspective Forums Sponsor

Go Back   PC Perspective Forums > PC Perspective Community > The Lightning Round
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Rules Members List iTrader Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Lightning Round If you're looking for a highly charged debate, this is the place to find it. But be forewarned, rules infractions are taken very seriously here.

Reply
 §   #1  
Old 01-09-2005, 07:55 PM
edudlive
Registered User
 
Profile
Joined: Sep 2003
Age: 23
Status: ( Offline )
Posts: 3,981
open-source vs closed-source software

Just to make sure we all use the same definitions.

Open Source - Any software whose code is available for users to look at and modify freely. Linux is the best-known example; others include Apache, the dominant software for servers that dish out corporate web pages.

Closed Source - Pretty much the opposite of above. Examples - Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X (kind of*), etc

Which do you feel is superior? Do you feel that when the source is freely avaliable that it comprimises security by allowing people to find bugs/holes in the software, or that it allows people to find these bugs..and the bugs to be fixed quicker?

I am (as some of you know) a huge OSS (Open Source Software) guy. Almost all of my applications are open-sourced (with a few games/apps being exceptions) and usually I find that these applications can run in par with commerical CSS.

You guys here at this forum probably have quite the experience (more than you might think) with OSS...Linux (kernel), Apache, anything by Mozilla, etc.

Personally I feel that the source being open allows security holes and bugs to be found and fixed much faster than closed source. I.E...a bug is found in the Linux Kernel and is fixed within 24 hours (if not before)..same with Firefox (takes them a little longer) while companies like Microsoft take sweet time to get these problems fixed.

*Mac OS X was based off a form of FreeBSD and because of this they were required to release their OS as OSS, the GUI for OS X (Aqua) however is not open-source.
__________________
Finding the clitoris? Is that like finding Jesus?
Reply With Quote
 §   #2  
Old 01-09-2005, 09:11 PM
Jezus
Banned
 
Profile
Joined: Feb 2002
Status: ( Offline )
Posts: 1,032
Re: open-source vs closed-source software

I think closed-source is superior. While the community may not be there to help patch any holes as with open-source it is also more difficult to find the holes when you dont have access to the source.

Slashdot had an article about this maybe a year ago. Linux had been succesfully attacked over 12000 times while windows was just a few hundred according to the article. I think that shows the difference between having the source in the hands of someone with bad intentions and not.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Go Back   PC Perspective Forums > PC Perspective Community > The Lightning Round

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© PC Perspective 2000 - Present