Wait… I don’t know if a project is maintained or not because I can’t see its source code? This statement is nuts as it is, but you also construct a reality which is severely undercomplex. If I ever reach a point where I have to find out if some software is maintained or not, meaning: if I can rely on it any longer, then I’m already in trouble, closed source or open source, because I haven’t evaluated my options early enough and waited until the inevitable happens: I’m using a software which by all means and purposes is dead. Are you suggesting that scouring the commit log is a remedy for this?

And again: the source code is only of hypothetical value to you. You have to be able to read it, you have to be able to understand it. And you, Mr. oiaohm, are mistakenly assuming that there’s something like a web of trust for every piece of open source code, where you can rely on this code purely because it’s open source. In your world open source in itself is sufficient enough for attesting code a certain quality.

Chris Weig the embedded paper was comparing to the best closed source out their like vxworks. Stuff that makes Windows look primitive for security and stability. This is the problem. Linux is fairly much in line with the best closed source. The big problem here Windows is not the best closed source.

No, in the paper four kernels are compared. VxWorks doesn’t play any role in the paper. Learn to read!

Myth. Funny enough items like MP3 and other items in MPEG LA companies in it have been sued. Why there no promise that everyone with patents will do the right thing with them.

MP3. Wow, you had to dig out an old one. MPEG LA was formed precisely to prevent such a patent thicket. And by and large it works out just fine.

There is a patent pool behind WebM as well Chris Weig. Quite a large one in fact.

Has it helped them? No. And it won’t. Don’t expect WebM to supersede H.264 or H.265 or whatever comes after that.

Really how little you know Chris Weig. There are a lot of software auditing tools out there. Anyone maintaining properly secure sites should be running this stuff. Like the USA mil and other Mil around the world.

When you get into the dog house of Closed Source like Shareware and Freeware programs you also have the same problem of really bad lack of maintenance. Big problem with closed source how do you know if a project is lack of maintenance Chris Weig you don’t you cannot see what the source code is doing with closed source you could just count the version number forwards and release so appearing to do maintenance when doing nothing. Only the lead programs in FOSS or Closed Source are properly maintained. FOSS does allow you to find out.

Like I get some backward PHP thing I run a PHP audit over it the thing throws up flaw warnings I try something else.

Brillo
“Even with the Linux kernel, it’s highly doubtful that each line of the code has been read through by more than a few people (including the originator and the respective maintainers) – let alone closely inspected.”
The answer is 12 people have read the every section as part of the Linux maintenance process. 2 signs are required before a patch gets to Linus and zero objections. So is 3 people should have fully read the code before it goes into Linux in the first place the other 9 come by the maintenance process. There is a very formal process to Linux kernel development including pgp based signing.

That is not allowing for those in the lkml mailing list who can object to patches. As I have done from time to time and seen the patch be rejected from include because of it.

Chris Weig the embedded paper was comparing to the best closed source out their like vxworks. Stuff that makes Windows look primitive for security and stability. This is the problem. Linux is fairly much in line with the best closed source. The big problem here Windows is not the best closed source.

Chris Weig
“The risk of being sued is kept to a minimum, while you have no such guarantee with “open” FLOSS “standards” like Google’s WebM”

Myth. Funny enough items like MP3 and other items in MPEG LA companies in it have been sued. Why there no promise that everyone with patents will do the right thing with them.

http://www.lawsof.com/page/Google-Brokers-Patent-Peace-Talks-for-WebM-Technology.html There is a patent pool behind WebM as well Chris Weig. Quite a large one in fact.

“Dude! There are no locked up standards!”

Chris the big FAT asshole.

People pay to make Bluray, DVD and music players as well. Nobody cares.

Most standards are voluntary in the sense that they are offered for adoption by people or industry without being mandated in law.

False. Standardization offers no value proposition of its own and increases the overall cost of production (as a result of extra efforts to comply with standards) for manufacturers/software developers. In most cases, industry stardards are just vehicles to create a barrier of entry to an existing market, initiatives to band together smaller players to compete with bigger business rivals or evolutionary results of certain types of products.

Most standards are voluntary in the sense that they are offered for adoption by people or industry without being mandated in law. Some standards become mandatory when they are adopted by regulators as legal requirements in particular domains.

Example:
A standards organization gets together, decides on a course of action, then forces someone pay for information, which should have been open and free to begin with to benefit all society.

OpenAccess is — like anyone could most likely guess — about free (as in beer) access to scientific articles.

And now dougman’s brain stopped working, because he’s writing some nonsense about “[l]ocked up” standards.

Dude! There are no locked up standards! A standard couldn’t become a standard if it were locked up. That wouldn’t make sense. That’s, by the way, what Steve Jobs tried to teach you imbeciles when he remarked that H.264 was an open standard. Yes, OPEN. Because everyone can implement it. No, that H.264 is patent-encumbered has nothing to do with it. Quite on the contrary. FLOSS fanatics may wish the MPEG LA to hell but the H.264 license pool is precisely what enables companies to implement H.264. The risk of being sued is kept to a minimum, while you have no such guarantee with “open” FLOSS “standards” like Google’s WebM (have they finally finished converting all their videos?).

Did some FLOSS-tards come up with H.265? No, MPEG did. And the standard is open.

And one more thing, for the very last time: open source is not a quality criterion. For example, it’s nice that the Blender Open Movies are “open source”. But they also very much suck. Will I stop going to the movies or watching TV because of “open movies”? Hell no.

If 90% of everything is cr*p, then “open” things are no exception.

The reality proves you wrong. Sorry.

Locked up standards are becoming the OLD school model *looks* at IEEE.

Apple use to be so far ahead of the pack, they didn’t care about the competition. Now they just want to set on their laurels and collect revenue.

I could also say the same about music being moving towards opensource, but I have already skewed the discussion.