begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:01:10AM -0500: > >From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Well, with App P, there's a legally recognized entity that I can sue > >if it turns out they provided me with malware; with App O, I have no > >idea _who_ would be responsible, aside from myself for failing to > >audit and peer review umpty-thousand lines of code. > > Read the EULA.
Ultimately meaningless. > All closed source companies expressly deny all warranty, And open-source doesn't? And what color is the sky in your alternate reality again? > including the warranty of merchantability (basicly, the promise that they > didn't lie and it does what they told you). Sorry, no can sue. You can _always_ sue. . . so long as there's someone to sue. There are some rights you can't give up. [snip] > Have you tried to sue someone lately? I garuntee you an audit is cheaper. I guarantee you otherwise, if you want a decent audit. If you want a half-assed audit, then sure, that would be cheaper. Once. Maybe twice. Of course, every time someone makes a change to the code, you have to audit the software *again*. And because open-source software generally suffers from dependency hell, you have to audit damn near *everything*. Every time someone makes a change, somewhere. > In addition, if its open source, a lot of people are using it, and some > fraction of them *will* examine the code, mainly to audit it. Any huge > problem will come out then. I trust that a lot more than I do Company > Foo's internal processes. I've been looking at open-source code lately, and y'know what, it ain't any better than what I see anywhere else. Granted, I don't see but a tiny fraction of "closed source", but I suspect it's all crappy code, open *or* closed. Most programmers are lazy, busy, overloaded, and mostly interested in the neat stuff and "Getting It To Work". -Stewart "Don't like bullshit even if my own side serves it up" Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
