On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:47:49PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: [...] > [...] A disadvantage is that often the priorities of the developers who release > free, open source software are not always the same as the priorities of any particular > user [...] This might have been different back when the user used to be the paying customer. That ship has sailed long ago. Even back then, attention was optimized towards the "biggest subset". > Megha Verma of medium.com goes so far to say a disadvantage of OSS is that free > open source software can be misused for malicious purposes, but it would be hard > to prove what she says is true, but her point is that the way open source projects > are governed lends itself to possible abuse. This is how she explains it: > > "Open Source Software is accessible to all means it can be used and misused. > And, that’s where it turns unconstructive for us. With OSS, we can expect harm, > virus transfer, identity burglary, and many other malicious practices to hurt the > process." [1] Aha. That's why the most virus-ridden operating system out there is "open source". Oh, wait... This is naive. No. Such simplistic views are just wrong. I'm not saying free software is immune against malware. Not by a long shot. There are strengths and weaknesses -- in my eyes, the biggest strength of free software (I much prefer this spelling to the other, mind you) is the higher average level of proficiency among their users, something free software fosters by its very model. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature