|
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?
|