4 ms·

History repeats itself. Interesting how this has been happening since back then and we are still surprised by it. I don't have the numbers, but without Android

History repeats itself. Interesting how this has been happening since back then and we are still surprised by it. I don't have the numbers, but without Android and Ubuntu it would seem much less appealing then nowadays. I wonder if any of these actually are in place and working, and what is keeping anyone from trying again. On a side note, is open source peer-reviewed software really more secure than closed source? It is a choice between trusting a single entity to make safe programs and not purposefully put backdoors on the code and trusting lots of entities to make safe code, not purposefully backdoor it and trusting the reviewer's abilities.

StavrosK 13y ago
> It is a choice between trusting a single entity to make safe programs and not purposefully put backdoors on the code and trusting lots of entities to make safe code, not purposefully backdoor it and trusting the reviewer's abilities. It is a choice between trusting the reviewer and having the code open to scrutiny, or trusting the entity and not having the code open to scrutiny. Same trust surface, much less opportunity for review.
- gabriel34 13y ago
  What I meant is that there is a trade-off and the choice is highly subjective. Opensource is not always better. Having lots of entities involved lessens the trustworthiness of the program. Being open source enhances it because of community scrutiny. The trustworthiness of a software is function of the trustworthiness of every entity involved in the making of said software or at least in the making of the most vulnerable ones. Surely the reviewers pull the trustworthiness up, but having many entities, some unknown to you, involved can dissolve their effects. Being fruit of bad reviewers or bad programmers, some mistake or malicious code may pass by unnoticed. Which one would you trust more: 1. Open Source software writen by a single trustworthy person and reviewed by many 2. Open Source software writen by many people and reviewed by many

StavrosK 13y ago

> It is a choice between trusting a single entity to make safe programs and not purposefully put backdoors on the code and trusting lots of entities to make safe code, not purposefully backdoor it and trusting the reviewer's abilities. It is a choice between trusting the reviewer and having the code open to scrutiny, or trusting the entity and not having the code open to scrutiny. Same trust surface, much less opportunity for review.

gabriel34 13y ago
What I meant is that there is a trade-off and the choice is highly subjective. Opensource is not always better. Having lots of entities involved lessens the trustworthiness of the program. Being open source enhances it because of community scrutiny. The trustworthiness of a software is function of the trustworthiness of every entity involved in the making of said software or at least in the making of the most vulnerable ones. Surely the reviewers pull the trustworthiness up, but having many entities, some unknown to you, involved can dissolve their effects. Being fruit of bad reviewers or bad programmers, some mistake or malicious code may pass by unnoticed. Which one would you trust more: 1. Open Source software writen by a single trustworthy person and reviewed by many 2. Open Source software writen by many people and reviewed by many