3 ms·
The difference is that most open source projects start out open. They also don't start out on 95% of computers. Let me put it this way: if Windows were open sou
by coderdude 17y ago
The difference is that most open source projects start out open. They also don't start out on 95% of computers. Let me put it this way: if Windows were open sourced today, would Windows users be safe? Would the legion of "Good Hackers" be quicker and brighter than the legion "Bad Hackers?" There is no possible way, on a level playing field, that we would not be attacked by several new exploits a week. Every day possibly.
- bediger 17y agoIf Windows were open sourced today, would Windows users be safe? No. Parts of Windows have such bad design that they'll never be safe. Big example: the silly "attributes" that don't include "executable". Having a file name determine executability is prone to human errors, especially since a definitive list of "extensions" that make a file executable is not forthcoming. But if you open-sourced it, someone would eventually provide you with that list of "extensions".
- TallGuyShort 17y agoThat's a valid point, and a good one I think. Personally though, I still think the benefits outweigh the dangers - especially given the points bediger adds.