Agreed, but surely you see a difference between an open source implementation that is out for audit by anyone, and a closed source implementation that is kept under lock & key? They could both be compromised intentionally or unintentionally, but IMHO one shows a lot more good faith than the other.
No. That’s your bias as a nerd. There are countless well-publicised examples of ‘many eyeballs’ not being remotely as effective as nerds make it out to be.
If you don't personally write the software stack on your devices, at some point you have to trust a third party.
I would trust a company more if their random features sending data are opt-in.
A non-advertized feature, which is not independently verified, which about image contents? I would be prefer independent verification of their claims.
Agreed, but surely you see a difference between an open source implementation that is out for audit by anyone, and a closed source implementation that is kept under lock & key? They could both be compromised intentionally or unintentionally, but IMHO one shows a lot more good faith than the other.
No. That’s your bias as a nerd. There are countless well-publicised examples of ‘many eyeballs’ not being remotely as effective as nerds make it out to be.
8 replies →
The developer-to-user trust required in the context of open-source software is substantially less than in proprietary software. this much is evident.