Greetings,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay
<sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Rajagopal Swaminathan
<raju.rajsand at gmail.com> wrote:
Excuse me. IT should be 0%.
You are correct. It should be. However, it often isn't. What does
happen is that with closed source software you default to trusting
that the vendor has done everything right. The fact that you do not
have access to the source code can encourage and provide incentive for
ugly code flows.
It means that open source community is "passable" or IOW is worse
The difference between that and open source is that you have access to
the source code. There are vendors who analyse application source code
(Coverity, Blackduck etc) and, you can choose to undertake
investigation yourself if you are competent, capable and know what you
are doing. The fact that code that is pushed to a publicly available
repository is "forever on the internet" is a remarkable motivator to
do things the right way or, at least tell people that you have a piece
that is currently ugly but will be revised. So, the evolution from
"passable" to beautiful is transparent and collaborative.
Now, the question remains around which model of software development
would you default your trust on.