Re: [PLUG] Microsoft's Many Eyeballs?

[Bob Schwier <schwepes2002@yahoo.com>]

Microsoft has a publicity machine that has more power than most
governments and religions in history.
Sheeple only know that it exists and if they don't like it they must
do Apple.
The data administrators and other software geeks are the only ones
who can explain that there are other approaches.
Most of the sheeple are simply unused to maintaining any thing except
by calling the expert.  I had a problem with my oven, an error code,
and it was like pulling teeth to get them to tell me what it was.
Their continual response was for me to set up an appointment where I
could spend $240 to get an expert's opinion.  I had to explain that
I had worked with 440v 3 phase power and microwave systems to get
even the most modest dose of information.  They told me it was unsafe
for me to even think of looking at the problem myself. 
I'm just a perpetual novice but it is far easier maintaining my machine
than my wife's Windows box.  I've never had those unfortunate virus
issues, etc.
bs
 



--- On Mon, 5/23/11, Paul Walker <starsinmypockets@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Paul Walker <starsinmypockets@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PLUG] Microsoft's Many Eyeballs?
To: "Philadelphia Linux User's Group Discussion List" <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2011, 6:28 PM

Linux and linux-based OSX are way more stable than Windows, in my experience.

Paul

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Julien Vehent <julien@linuxwall.info> wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:08:39 -0400, Stephen Slaughter wrote:


What do you folks think about this article?





http://blogs.msdn.com/b/shawnhernan/archive/2010/02/13/microsoft-s-many-eyeballs-and-the-security-development-lifecycle.aspx


[1]



Is it true that open source code is reviewed by many fewer eyes than

we might think?



I'm dubious about the opinion of this article (i.e.. proprietary code

from Microsoft is more secure) considering it was written by a

Microsoft developer; however, people who think Linux is more secure

are usually Linux developers and enthusiasts.



Can anyone point me to an impartial opinion on this subject?








FUD.

Microsoft has been doing closed source development for almost 40 years, and so far they didn't prove they could provide code free of bugs or security issues.



I see people coming from nowhere proposing patches to open source projects (not only security patches, all sorts of patches), that's the strengths of the Open Source model.

OpenSSL, for example, is ultra secure partly because of the many reviewers that have access to the source. Now, the code is beefy, and reviewing is hard, but it happens, and probably more often than at microsoft.







Julien



___________________________________________________________________________

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org

Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce

General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug




-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug