RE: Why open source software is more secure

> The main goal of a software vendor is not to bring you a
> _good_ product, but to sell it you. That is the only truth
> about that.

And I thought I was cynical... I'm not saying that there aren't poor
products, but there are companies who see making a quality product as a
sales asset, and making a living out of selling a product doesn't mean you
can't believe in and be passionate about improving that product.

> That's why the product might be fully featured,
> nicely decorated and published on time: the vendor is
> economically motivated to make it this way. But there's no
> sense to make it secure and stable because the only motive
> for this is liability which does not exist software industry.

This is exactly the wrong way round. Selling a product usually establishes a
contractual liability. Open source software is unsuitable in many contexts
precisely because of the difficulty of establishing liability in the event
of a problem.

I'm not saying that good (excellent, even) open source software doesn't
exist: I use some myself. But there is also stuff around that couldn't
survive commercially because of its limitations and/or lack of support.
 

-- 
DH