Should the government adopt open-source technology? (Business Standard) [LWN.net]

The (India) Business Standard is running a debate between Javed Tapia (Red Hat India) and Shailendra Kumar (Microsoft India) on whether the Indian government should use free software. "Additionally, security vulnerabilities in open-source software, which often go unnoticed with the limited scenarios that actually deploy open-source software, also often remain unaddressed for long periods of time because there is no central organisation driving development. Evaluating open-source software for security is a complex proposition."

(Log in to post comments)

Should the government adopt open-source technology? (Business Standard)

Posted Aug 27, 2003 14:37 UTC (Wed) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

True.

Of course, evaluating security in proprietary software is much simpler because, without the source code, you basically can't....

-Rob

Should the government adopt open-source technology? YES

Posted Aug 27, 2003 14:47 UTC (Wed) by alspnost (subscriber, #2763) [Link]

Microsoft's security FUD, as quoted above, is an absolute joke!

We all know that open source code, which is examined and probed by thousands of people all the time, is conducive to rapid bug fixing and speedy resolution of security holes. No need to preach that here....

But it's sad that some people will believe what Microsoft says, just because of who they are. So then, Microsoft, what about the list of still-unfixed holes in IE? What about the recent hole that afflicted all versions of Windows going right back to 98? Hmmm, does that sound like a vulnerability "remaining unaddressed for long periods"? Shurely not?

Clutching at straws again, Microsoft? It's amazing how, time after time, they slog to convince people that $X,000 per year is cheaper than free forever. Sure, training costs money, but who are they kidding?

Must we have our heads screwed on? YES

Posted Aug 29, 2003 0:06 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link]

> We all know that open source code, which is examined and probed
> by thousands of people all the time

This is free software FUD, please stop repeating it.

The code is available for examination, but that doesn't mean it is being examined. Who are these "thousands" of invisible code auditors that we claim exist?

Linux has a lot of people regularly looking at the code. Apache has some people looking regularly. Glibc has a few. And that's about it. Other packages have fewer developers, and only these developers are looking at the code. Are these developers security compentent?

I have no doubt that free software is more secure, but we have to argue our corner with facts, not hopes.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Should the government adopt open-source technology? (Business Standard)

Posted Aug 28, 2003 17:16 UTC (Thu) by petem (guest, #14531) [Link]

wow.. i find that im insulted everytime someone from MS speaks.. and im
surprised that more people are not.... they are beginning to sound as
rediculous as SCO.. and now we have this guy say

"Additionally, security vulnerabilities in open-source software, which
often go unnoticed with the limited scenarios that actually deploy
open-source software, also often remain unaddressed for long periods of
time because there is no central organisation driving development.
Evaluating open-source software for security is a complex proposition."

i mean.. how long has windows been out.. ANY VERSION.. and how many
security holes have been found.. are being found and will be found..

again.. they must feel that the world people are morons and that they can
talk down to everyone..

again.. it's insulting..