Re: Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Source Software (Was Re: Package grub-xen-host breaks PV domains with 11.5 point release)

[Thiemo Kellner <thiemo@gelassene-pferde.biz>]

Am 12.09.22 um 19:47 schrieb Chuck Zmudzinski:
> "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]
>
> I would not go so far to say that is happening in Debian, but I have experienced
> the fact that not every bug that is important to my use case will be fixed quickly
> in Debian, even if I or other users takes the time to find the fix and share it
> with the Debian developers. This experience of mine with Debian as a long-time
> user of Debian *does* raise suspicion in my mind, and I would not be suspicious
> of malicious intent by Debian developers and maintainers if they were more
> responsive to some bugs they just ignore for months and even years. I agree
> my suspicion does not prove malice, but my suspicion is reasonable when there
> are Debian "volunteers" who do work in corporate environments where the
> interests of their employer might conflict with the interests of the open source
> software projects such as Debian that they contribute to. This is simply a risk that
> users of Debian software, or of any open source software, should be aware of,
> and users should know how to mitigate this risk of malicious activity within
> open source software projects like Debian.
>
> So it as a fact that if a person is just a user of Debian and not an official
> developer of Debian, there is no guarantee that the use case of that particular
> user will receive prompt attention from the official Debian developers. That
> is true because Debian developers are just volunteers and not liable for any
> problems the software they release might cause to those who use Debian
> software. That is a *big disadvantage* of open source software.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck
>
> [1] https://medium.com/quick-code/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source-software-explained-2fd35acd413

Hi Chuck

While I think that you are partly right (prioritization of bug fixing of 
OSS) but my experience of closed source software (even paid for) is that 
one usually is only the small fish in the pond and one's needs are 
rather put back. However, with OSS, if you cannot fix it yourself - I 
suppose most users cannot do - one is free to give incentives to get 
one's wishes done. You can call it bribery if you like or putting a 
bounty on a problem.

I do not quite get the meaning of "Open Source Software is accessible to 
all means it can be used and misused." by Megha Verma. Assuming that it 
is by its nature possible to "inject" malicious code then yes and no. 
Yes, it theoretically is possible as anyone can get and change the code, 
but no, if the project is fairly well maintained, i.e. no commits to the 
main branch of the code repository without any review. Personally, I 
have been using OSS for more than 25 years and never had the suspicion 
any of the OSS I used was acting malicious.

I also would like to point to the table of mentioned lady. It states 
that OSS is open and FREE. As far as I am informed, the latter is not 
mandatory. I believe Richard Stallman put it that way: OSS is free as in 
freedom and not as in free beer. I hardly have ever noticed OSS not 
being free of fees but yet it is possible. Either she did not know, or 
she did not notice when putting in the table. But be it as it may, I 
think, that the association of OSS with free beer raises the expectation 
that OSS maintenance is not to cost a dime, and therefore a bad 
association. Thus, I have begun to donate to OSS projects to give back 
in that way at least.

Kind regards

Thiemo


--
Signal (Safer than WhatsApp): +49 1578 7723737
Threema (Safer than WhatsApp): A76MKH3J
Handy: +49 1578 772 37 37