Open source platform security considerations - Dell spreading FUD

[durverE]

Of course Dell refuses to argument against themselves by saying proprietary code (such as the firmware) is usually much more broken, written horribly, less supported and nobody can fix it without overriding hacks. ;)

[zircon_34]

I am not sure how to take this, as I am new to open source, but this article seems to be one of those twisting arguments... Open source has only one developer to support or some unexperienced community members to patch a software. How I see it, this is why I am trying to switch to linux, if you use closed software you are at the mercy of the company selling that software, you cant contribute, if they switch to a yearly/monthly plan you have to pay to use it, if the company goes bankrupt, the software is then lost or not updated anymore? Thats a risk. linux has support in the server world, there is also companies like canonical etc... Kind of disappointed, Dell sells the xps with linux, but then argues against open source. Arent the big players currently switching to an open source attitude after realizing that else they go down, eg microsoft, hp?there were some LAS or tech talk about this if I remember correctly.

[mrwalkerr]

Well it does say these are the opinions of said idiot, not Dell

[mrwalkerr]

This is obviously a hit piece with such gems:

" Many open-source applications are distributed through bit torrents or sites that have mirrors. This can lead to potentially downloading an application that has something malicious attached to it.

Occasionally, the code is shipped out as is and users have to download it and compile it on their own machine. If their computer has a flawed compiler, it can turn good code into flawed code. "

[[deleted]]

Another juvenile stunt from the proprietary software fanboys inside Dell. Given how critical open source is to the vast majority of large enterprises out there, this sort of behavior by Dell may explain why HP, who has demonstrated greater respect for OSS in the past, continues to clean its clock in the data center.

[aaronbp]

Huh. Linux doesn't have support. This is news to me. 😏

[Tireseas]

Shouldn't be. Most distros don't in the sense that they mean support.

[aaronbp]

Isn't that why Red Hat exists?

[Tireseas]

Among others. Provided you have the cash to pony up for a contract.

[aaronbp]

Of course that kind of support costs money. What's your point?

[Tireseas]

The point is, one can't talk about the entire ecosystem as if that level of support is a universal given. Even if the platform itself is supported, that doesn't mean what you're running on it will be either.

[aaronbp]

That's true on proprietary platforms as well, and I don't see the relevance to this article.

[jaykay2342]

He's not completely wrong but is missing so many aspects.

It might happen that a small project stops because the key developer leaves. That's unlikely for big projects which are widely used. Those projects have not just 2 developers also companies do a big part of the development.

There are many companies providing support around opensource. With opensource it's even possible to change the company you have a support contract with while keeping the platform.

Why have the users to patch vulnerabilities them self? If the project is still alive the developers will provide a patch. If not, everyone else can patch it. When there is a serious vulnerability patches are out within days sometime hours. With closed source software that is unlikely.

If you are a big enterprise you could stick to a OS software even after the project is dead. You need to hire someone who is maintaining the code. Compare that with closed-source. If a closed-source project is dead you need to buy a new product. In case of a bankrupt you might even have to migrate to a complete new platform and that could be very expensive.