3 ms·

You're actually making the argument that Windows is now secure and Linux isn't, because Linux gets attention around security events? I'm afraid that seems outla

You're actually making the argument that Windows is now secure and Linux isn't, because Linux gets attention around security events? I'm afraid that seems outlandish to me.

EGreg 11y ago
I think he is talking about smaller and less mature projects than Linux or BSD variants. Say you're a small developer who's spent years on a new platform that will power your social network with millions of people. You might want to keep it closed source for a few years and only release the source code to a select number of people until you've let security researchers take cracks a it. Once it's had a few years of battle testing, you can release it. As opposed to releasing the source code to your social network and making it 100x easier for anyone to come up with an exploit against your network. In fact I'd say it might be better that a relatively new app (especially ANY APP that powers servers) to remain closed source until given the green light by security researchers. And even then... Imagine if Facebook open sourced the code running their social network? I guess the question could equally be ... is there ever a social good from centralizing your social network and not letting it be distributed across all machines in the world? I would say security.
- rudolf0 11y ago
  I don't think Facebook's business would be at risk at all if they open sourced most of the backend code. As long they kept things like spam/malware detections closed. Facebook's main value proposition is the existing network. Another network could possibly overtake them some day, but they're definitely not going to be doing it with Facebook's source; not even a heavy fork of that source.
  - EGreg 11y ago
    Right. But imagine if Zuck opensourced the exact facebook source from day 1 or day 100. It would have been hacked a long time ago to the point of collapse, and who would that have benefited?

You're actually making the argument that Windows is now secure and Linux isn't, because Linux gets attention around security events? I'm afraid that seems outlandish to me.

EGreg 11y ago

I think he is talking about smaller and less mature projects than Linux or BSD variants. Say you're a small developer who's spent years on a new platform that will power your social network with millions of people. You might want to keep it closed source for a few years and only release the source code to a select number of people until you've let security researchers take cracks a it. Once it's had a few years of battle testing, you can release it. As opposed to releasing the source code to your social network and making it 100x easier for anyone to come up with an exploit against your network. In fact I'd say it might be better that a relatively new app (especially ANY APP that powers servers) to remain closed source until given the green light by security researchers. And even then... Imagine if Facebook open sourced the code running their social network? I guess the question could equally be ... is there ever a social good from centralizing your social network and not letting it be distributed across all machines in the world? I would say security.

rudolf0 11y ago
I don't think Facebook's business would be at risk at all if they open sourced most of the backend code. As long they kept things like spam/malware detections closed. Facebook's main value proposition is the existing network. Another network could possibly overtake them some day, but they're definitely not going to be doing it with Facebook's source; not even a heavy fork of that source.
- EGreg 11y ago
  Right. But imagine if Zuck opensourced the exact facebook source from day 1 or day 100. It would have been hacked a long time ago to the point of collapse, and who would that have benefited?