How is that FOSS "many eyes" thing working out for ya all?

[size=1]Nobody reads the sources, okay. Oh, and nobody can compile them either.[/size] :stirpot:

Well, I would actually argue that the vulnerability was found [U]because[/U] they [U]are[/U] open sources, [U]and[/U] because someone, sometime [U]do[/U] read the sources and compile them. If that would be proprietary (i.e. secret), nobody will ever make this public (remark: I did not say "nobody will ever find it"). Let's be clear, I do not advocate "open sources", but i fully recognize its merits. In this case, open source has its benefits. As a programmer, i.e. e guy who puts the food on the table for his kids by writing source code, mostly proprietary, I am teared in half for both the open source and secret stuff. Both have their merits and disadvantages.

LaurV,
I work in a shop that has programmers & technicians of all religions: Windows apologists, Open Source freaks, smug Apple fan-boys, IBM mainframe dinosaurs, etc. Where I agree with retina is that the Open Source crowd has always claimed that they are the most secure and have NO vulnerabilities and don't bother them with any security concerns because OPEN SOURCE IS PERFECT. So there is a bit schadenfreude on everyone's else's part when this came up.
( It should be noted that the smug Apple fan-boys are actually the worst in this regard )

[QUOTE=tServo;370649]LaurV,
I work in a shop that has programmers & technicians of all religions: Windows apologists, Open Source freaks, smug Apple fan-boys, IBM mainframe dinosaurs, etc. Where I agree with retina is that the Open Source crowd has always claimed that they are the most secure and have NO vulnerabilities and don't bother them with any security concerns because OPEN SOURCE IS PERFECT. So there is a bit schadenfreude on everyone's else's part when this came up.
( It should be noted that the smug Apple fan-boys are actually the worst in this regard )[/QUOTE]

You are painting with a broad brush. I do not know of one Open Source supporter who believes that open source is perfect. Being an Apple fan-boy myself, I know they aren't perfect either. I do view them as better than the alternative. The stability of the various Macs I have owned over the past (nearly) three decades proves that.

[QUOTE=tServo;370649]LaurV,
I work in a shop that has programmers & technicians of all religions: Windows apologists, Open Source freaks, smug Apple fan-boys, IBM mainframe dinosaurs, etc. Where I agree with retina is that the Open Source crowd has always claimed that they are the most secure and have NO vulnerabilities and don't bother them with any security concerns because OPEN SOURCE IS PERFECT. So there is a bit schadenfreude on everyone's else's part when this came up.
( It should be noted that the smug Apple fan-boys are actually the worst in this regard )[/QUOTE]Oooh, I do love a good religious war.
:popcorn:


FWIW, I believe that Emacs is better than vi and that BSD is dead.

[QUOTE=xilman;370660]Oooh, I do love a good religious war.
:popcorn:


FWIW, I believe that Emacs is better than vi and that BSD is dead.[/QUOTE]

Bwahahahaha... bring the flame!

:popcorn:

[QUOTE=rogue;370658]You are painting with a broad brush. I do not know of one Open Source supporter who believes that open source is perfect. Being an Apple fan-boy myself, I know they aren't perfect either. I do view them as better than the alternative. The stability of the various Macs I have owned over the past (nearly) three decades proves that.[/QUOTE]

To try to douse the flames a bit, I was referring to the ones in my shop, not to
the general community.

[QUOTE=xilman;370660]Oooh, I do love a good religious war.
:popcorn:


FWIW, I believe that Emacs is better than vi and that BSD is dead.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=312264&postcount=249[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;370660]FWIW, I believe that Emacs is better than vi and that BSD is dead.[/QUOTE]

Emacs may very well be better than vi.

However, I have always taught my students and my juniors that one must always know how to use vi as an editor, because it is the only editor you can be almost sure is installed on the Unix environment one might encounter, even if 35 years old.

One should, of course, also know how to use sed, for those rare cases where vi is not available. Notepad? Laugh (and then fart) in their general direction....

(For the record, VIM is my standard text and code editor.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;370675]Emacs may very well be better than vi.

However, I have always taught my students and my juniors that one must always know how to use vi as an editor, because it is the only editor you can be almost sure is installed on the Unix environment one might encounter, even if 35 years old.[/QUOTE]Emacs is also 35+ years old.

Vi is for windows weenies who can't hack ed(1).

[QUOTE=xilman;370677]Vi is for windows weenies who can't hack ed(1).[/QUOTE]

LOL...

Insult appropriate and accepted. :smile: