3 ms·
That's not really a valid analogy. Why? Well, the user of an open source product gets the same sort of interface as the user of a proprietary product. It can be
by tikhonj 14y ago
That's not really a valid analogy. Why? Well, the user of an open source product gets the same sort of interface as the user of a proprietary product. It can be a pretty GUI that only presents the things you care about.
The difference comes when you want to customize its behavior--in the open source version, you could five until the code yourself or, more likely, hire somebody to look into it for you. Similarly, if you were very worried about security, you could run an independent audit of the code yourself. Neither of these options exists for a proprietary product.
Basically, you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is suggesting giving the user more options in the interface. Rather, the suggestion is to give the user access to the source code in case they want something modified.
The "fundamental control" in question is about who gets to see and use the source code, not about what the average user can do from a GUI.
- joesb 14y ago> The difference comes when you want to customize its behavior What does that have to do with whether the unmodified one must means user has no security? All you said can mean you can be more sure that open source code is secure. But it does in no way proof that "proprietary security software mean no security at all (EDIT: better be 'proprietary security software mean user has no security')".
- nitrogen 14y agoThat was addressed in the parent poster's very next sentence: Similarly, if you were very worried about security, you could run an independent audit of the code yourself. Neither of these options exists for a proprietary product.