Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
But wait - open vs closed isn't the biggest factor for security in code? then what is?
The quality of the code being written.
yeah, I did think of this as I was writing the question... but it seemed so obvious as to be beside the point of the discussion at large.
One could say the same thing about source licensing, though. It's very similar. Open is a means to enhance security, closed is a way to cover up security failings. Just like well written code is a way to make it more secure and buggy or sloppy code is a good way to have vulnerabilities. They both fall under the "should we have to say it" category in the same way, and yet, we do.
But certainly, when the question comes to "what's the biggest factor", well code quality really is it. A lone coder, with zero review, no oversight, no budget, closed source... who writes truly breathtakingly perfect code is the best option. Not one that anyone gets to prove is good, but the resulting code will be the best. It's absurd, but it's important to remember that all other factors become moot if the original code is nearly perfect.
I guess I am currently looking at coding from a profitability POV. Open source seems to be much more difficult to make profitable. I mean I suppose you could use the same licenses MS has today on open source code, but how many people would still simply steal it?
This was the argument of music companies... stealing became easier than buying. Only once the buying became easier than ripping did that really change. -
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Open source seems to be much more difficult to make profitable
Of course it is. @scottalanmiller said as much about his own company.
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
The benefits of close source (and you can trust me, I run a closed source software firm) are 100% to the vendor keeping their technology out of their competitors hands. Closed source often makes it easier to make money on software where customers are unlikely to pay for support. That's it. That's the only benefit (but it's a big one), but the benefit exists only to the company selling access to the code. From the customers' perspective, every closed source product would be equal or better if opened.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I guess I am currently looking at coding from a profitability POV. Open source seems to be much more difficult to make profitable.
This is generally the case and I made a video explaining that last night that is in the process of being edited. Should be up in a week or two. But that's unrelated to the discussion. True, essentially fact, but not a factor.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
mean I suppose you could use the same licenses MS has today on open source code, but how many people would still simply steal it?
Like they do with the closed source already?
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
This was the argument of music companies... stealing became easier than buying. Only once the buying became easier than ripping did that really change.
Providing code does little to make it easier to steal software to use. When the question is about piracy, source isn't a factor. If Windows was open source, that wouldn't change piracy by even 1%. It might change copyright issues with competitors stealing code, but that's a totally different issue. But for end users stealing the product, it just doesn't play in.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
This was the argument of music companies... stealing became easier than buying. Only once the buying became easier than ripping did that really change.
Providing code does little to make it easier to steal software to use. When the question is about piracy, source isn't a factor. If Windows was open source, that wouldn't change piracy by even 1%. It might change copyright issues with competitors stealing code, but that's a totally different issue. But for end users stealing the product, it just doesn't play in.
Theft is only done when there isn't a viable option. No one goes around thinking "what can I steal today" mentality. It's a I need this or that and am going to steal it for whatever their reason is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I guess I am currently looking at coding from a profitability POV. Open source seems to be much more difficult to make profitable.
This is generally the case and I made a video explaining that last night that is in the process of being edited. Should be up in a week or two. But that's unrelated to the discussion. True, essentially fact, but not a factor.
Agreed, not a factor to the discussion at hand, but a reason we likely see so much closed source and will continue to do so.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
This was the argument of music companies... stealing became easier than buying. Only once the buying became easier than ripping did that really change.
Providing code does little to make it easier to steal software to use. When the question is about piracy, source isn't a factor. If Windows was open source, that wouldn't change piracy by even 1%. It might change copyright issues with competitors stealing code, but that's a totally different issue. But for end users stealing the product, it just doesn't play in.
Theft is only done when there isn't a viable option. No one goes around thinking "what can I steal today" mentality. It's a I need this or that and am going to steal it for whatever their reason is.
So I take it you don't consider paying for it a viable option, because presumably, that's almost always an option. Stealing music was worthwhile because buying CDs was expensive, and a PITA to rip by the masses, but using software like napster was as easy as using email, perhaps easier.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
This was the argument of music companies... stealing became easier than buying. Only once the buying became easier than ripping did that really change.
Providing code does little to make it easier to steal software to use. When the question is about piracy, source isn't a factor. If Windows was open source, that wouldn't change piracy by even 1%. It might change copyright issues with competitors stealing code, but that's a totally different issue. But for end users stealing the product, it just doesn't play in.
Theft is only done when there isn't a viable option. No one goes around thinking "what can I steal today" mentality. It's a I need this or that and am going to steal it for whatever their reason is.
So I take it you don't consider paying for it a viable option, because presumably, that's almost always an option. Stealing music was worthwhile because buying CDs was expensive, and a PITA to rip by the masses, but using software like napster was as easy as using email, perhaps easier.
No I do consider paying for something viable - personally. Others may not for whatever their reasons are.
Please refrain from inferring things based on a conversation.
-
Here's something else to think about.
AFAIK, Windows & Office (closed) has many more people able to support & repair it compared to non (open) Windows & Office competitors.
Could this make Windows & Office more secure than Open alternatives, simply as it could be assumed that patches/fixes could be put in place more quickly, than on Open products?
As an example. Business X needs the latest MS security fixes put in place. They go search for someone who can do that. How many IT support places support Windows & how many support places support Linux?
Could a product be considered more secure simply because it can be supported by many more parties than it's rival?
Or another way to think about it, could a product that is created less secure, be considered more secure than a more secure alternative, simply because the support base for the less secure product is far greater than the more secure product?
-
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Here's something else to think about.
AFAIK, Windows & Office (closed) has many more people able to support & repair it compared to non (open) Windows & Office competitors.
Could this make Windows & Office more secure than Open alternatives, simply as it could be assumed that patches/fixes could be put in place more quickly, than on Open products?
As an example. Business X needs the latest MS security fixes put in place. They go search for someone who can do that. How many IT support places support Windows & how many support places support Linux?
Could a product be considered more secure simply because it can be supported by many more parties than it's rival?
Or another way to think about it, could a product that is created less secure, be considered more secure than a more secure alternative, simply because the support base for the less secure product is far greater than the more secure product?
You're making the assumption that the larger support base is competent as the smaller support base, which is questionable at best.
-
@travisdh1 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Here's something else to think about.
AFAIK, Windows & Office (closed) has many more people able to support & repair it compared to non (open) Windows & Office competitors.
Could this make Windows & Office more secure than Open alternatives, simply as it could be assumed that patches/fixes could be put in place more quickly, than on Open products?
As an example. Business X needs the latest MS security fixes put in place. They go search for someone who can do that. How many IT support places support Windows & how many support places support Linux?
Could a product be considered more secure simply because it can be supported by many more parties than it's rival?
Or another way to think about it, could a product that is created less secure, be considered more secure than a more secure alternative, simply because the support base for the less secure product is far greater than the more secure product?
You're making the assumption that the larger support base is competent as the smaller support base, which is questionable at best.
Did you mean 'larger support base is as competent'?
Yep, I'm talking hypothetically actually, as in all things being equal. Just a point that I thought was interesting.
Could product A, which is considered less secure than product B, be considered more secure due to it having so many more people available to support it?
Think about it as both products, A & B are infected at the same time. Both are infecting your network at the same rate & speed & you need to get someone to fix the problem. Product A has 100 times more support people available to contact than product B. Does this make product A more secure than B simply because you can get it fixed more promptly than product B?
Just a conversation 'continuer'.
-
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@travisdh1 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Here's something else to think about.
AFAIK, Windows & Office (closed) has many more people able to support & repair it compared to non (open) Windows & Office competitors.
Could this make Windows & Office more secure than Open alternatives, simply as it could be assumed that patches/fixes could be put in place more quickly, than on Open products?
As an example. Business X needs the latest MS security fixes put in place. They go search for someone who can do that. How many IT support places support Windows & how many support places support Linux?
Could a product be considered more secure simply because it can be supported by many more parties than it's rival?
Or another way to think about it, could a product that is created less secure, be considered more secure than a more secure alternative, simply because the support base for the less secure product is far greater than the more secure product?
You're making the assumption that the larger support base is competent as the smaller support base, which is questionable at best.
Did you mean 'larger support base is as competent'?
Yep, I'm talking hypothetically actually, as in all things being equal. Just a point that I thought was interesting.
Could product A, which is considered less secure than product B, be considered more secure due to it having so many more people available to support it?
Think about it as both products, A & B are infected at the same time. Both are infecting your network at the same rate & speed & you need to get someone to fix the problem. Product A has 100 times more support people available to contact than product B. Does this make product A more secure than B simply because you can get it fixed more promptly than product B?
Just a conversation 'continuer'.
No, I don't agree that it would make it more secure just because there are more numbers in the phonebook to call. As Travish is I assuming leading - more doesn't mean better. Hell, Scott and others will say that one Linux Admin is worth like 100 Windows admins.
-
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
AFAIK, Windows & Office (closed) has many more people able to support & repair it compared to non (open) Windows & Office competitors.
This is the opposite of the general wisdom. This is actually a thing that I constantly teach - it's SO much easier to get competent support for Linux than for Windows. That Windows is almost impossible to filter through all the crap to find qualified support for is one of the biggest negatives of the ecosystem. It's actually one of the hardest products to get support for (not because it doesn't exist, but because it's such a tiny percentage of the people purporting to be Windows support people.)
-
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Could this make Windows & Office more secure than Open alternatives, simply as it could be assumed that patches/fixes could be put in place more quickly, than on Open products?
No, so much the opposite, in every sense. Linux has so many more good people, and SO much better patching. The gap is.... enormous. This is one of the areas where Linux is so massively far ahead. Yes, these things make a difference. But they make Windows go to last place, not first, for these very reasons.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Hell, Scott and others will say that one Linux Admin is worth like 100 Windows admins.
Kind of. It's not exactly how I would put it, but it is essentially true. If you work in the MSP space, you spend all your time cleaning up from Windows Admins who have been faking it.
-
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
As an example. Business X needs the latest MS security fixes put in place. They go search for someone who can do that. How many IT support places support Windows & how many support places support Linux?
This specially.... so much in Linux' favour. SO MUCH.
And even just the fact that one needs support to do something so basic, and the other... anyone could do and automate.
-
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Could a product be considered more secure simply because it can be supported by many more parties than it's rival?
Yes, for sure. And Windows having the least serious support is a huge problem for them that they tried to overcome with their certification processes, but that ended up biting them in the behind. Microsoft used this sales pitch of quantity over quality for a long time to try to excuse their poor support.
So yes, more support is better. But more bodies isn't more support.
-
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Or another way to think about it, could a product that is created less secure, be considered more secure than a more secure alternative, simply because the support base for the less secure product is far greater than the more secure product?
Yes, in a situation where that is true, which doesn't apply to Windows, it would be a factor.
Keep in mind Linux is the larger install base than Windows, as well. You are thinking that Windows is the market leader here, but it isn't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@siringo said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Or another way to think about it, could a product that is created less secure, be considered more secure than a more secure alternative, simply because the support base for the less secure product is far greater than the more secure product?
Yes, in a situation where that is true, which doesn't apply to Windows, it would be a factor.
Keep in mind Linux is the larger install base than Windows, as well. You are thinking that Windows is the market leader here, but it isn't.
Windows is the market leader when it comes to Desktop operating systems, Linux leads in server deployments.
Context is required here.
