It's hard no to see how many people don't realize that going to closed gardens to find some level of protection isn't that good idea, since being on a closed gardens isn't the same same thing as having software with robust security. The same goes to the idea that a software being open source makes it insecure is false, since that anyone can see the source code doesn't mean that they can put malicious code into it without someone else noticing it and removing the code.
As the matter of fact, open source tends to be safer because there are several people combing the code and knows what's suppose to be there. Those people also know what part of the code is supposed to do, so any part of the code that is new to them can be expected to be reviewed to make sure it does as advertised. It becomes harder to put malicious code into it, because of the nature of source code means that if someone misses the code there will be several other that have a chance to see it.
In the source code software there needs to be the trust that the people that are supposed to keep the code safe do, because they are the only one that can see the source code to make sure that there is no malicious code.
Personally, I don't mind having some closed sourced part in the software I use. But, those closed source parts shouldn't be at the core of the software or be at hearth of it so I can't run my computer properly without them. All closed source should be optional, and the user should be able to turn in off at any time if she or he chooses.
The foundations, and the core, of all the software available should relay on open source technologies. User will be truly free only this way, and there is no way around it.
No comments:
Post a Comment