Now despite the seriousness of the problem, it was found and patched remarkably quickly.
You've got to love a system where the fix for an OpenSSL exploit issue is... *drumroll* apt-get update ;-). The same command you'd be using normally anyway to collect security and other software updates.
Would this even have been discovered in a closed source model?
Possibly. The source might have fewer eyes looking, but, the people looking are doing it for a living and their livelihood depends on their being dilligent.
Would the company holding the patents and copyrights admit the problem?
I think you might be mistaking the slow going of a giant effective monopoly for standard behaviour at all proprietory firms, large and small. Larger companies have all the turning circle of a battleship. Smaller companies are more nimble.
With those questions in mind - and given the general usability of FOSS desktop UNIX-like systems, it never ceases to surprise me that people, every day, are still using MS-Windows and other closed-source solutions.
Most people out there will use the UI they're comfortable with, especially if it took them a while to learn it in the first place. That's the profile of your average (non-techy) office computer user. They'll also have this or that app they can't live without. Add the two together and they're never going to contemplate moving.
That's why I think the Linux desktop is a bit of a pipe dream (it's been the year of the Linux desktop for how many years now?) and why ReactOS is such an exciting prospect. It's Windows, GPL and without the bloaty extraneous cruft.
It's morally wrong [...]
At some point, even a FOSS programmer wants a job where his skills will help him pay the rent. Donations are irregular and won't cover it.
Relying on support contracts for your FOSS software has problems: (a) The aim of a good programmer is to make your software intuitive and bug-free enough that the users shouldn't need support, and, (b) programmers hate doing end user support.
That's the paradox of FOSS, really. It needs proprietory software development contracts around in the system to keep their FOSS programmers in a financial position where they can keep programming for free on those FOSS projects they're interested in.
no subject
You've got to love a system where the fix for an OpenSSL exploit issue is... *drumroll* apt-get update ;-). The same command you'd be using normally anyway to collect security and other software updates.
Would this even have been discovered in a closed source model?
Possibly. The source might have fewer eyes looking, but, the people looking are doing it for a living and their livelihood depends on their being dilligent.
Would the company holding the patents and copyrights admit the problem?
I think you might be mistaking the slow going of a giant effective monopoly for standard behaviour at all proprietory firms, large and small. Larger companies have all the turning circle of a battleship. Smaller companies are more nimble.
With those questions in mind - and given the general usability of FOSS desktop UNIX-like systems, it never ceases to surprise me that people, every day, are still using MS-Windows and other closed-source solutions.
Most people out there will use the UI they're comfortable with, especially if it took them a while to learn it in the first place. That's the profile of your average (non-techy) office computer user. They'll also have this or that app they can't live without. Add the two together and they're never going to contemplate moving.
That's why I think the Linux desktop is a bit of a pipe dream (it's been the year of the Linux desktop for how many years now?) and why ReactOS is such an exciting prospect. It's Windows, GPL and without the bloaty extraneous cruft.
It's morally wrong [...]
At some point, even a FOSS programmer wants a job where his skills will help him pay the rent. Donations are irregular and won't cover it.
Relying on support contracts for your FOSS software has problems: (a) The aim of a good programmer is to make your software intuitive and bug-free enough that the users shouldn't need support, and, (b) programmers hate doing end user support.
That's the paradox of FOSS, really. It needs proprietory software development contracts around in the system to keep their FOSS programmers in a financial position where they can keep programming for free on those FOSS projects they're interested in.