Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nathan
If there is nothing revolutionary in our system, I wonder why all our features are more advanced than any of the competition. It has nothing to do with me scripting some amazing PHP, its the features and how we make them work which is the thing we protect.
It was obvious you love open-source. And I have never said there is anything wrong with it. And yes, we use FreeBSD, PHP, MySQL. All open-source. Whats your point? Because we use those we have to understand that its essential to use the open-source system for anything we do? You do not need to know how NATS works. If a client of ours has a specific question about the inner workings we TELL them. We do not have to give them the whole source of NATS. The is intellectual property and any way we can we will protect it.
BTW, there are books about writing Apache modules. The source is actually not essential. ;)
Did I _EVER_ say windows was more secure or had less bugs? Stop interpreting what I write. _YOU_ said that the reason you like open-source is that people know the app is FLAWLESS. FreeBSD and/or Linux has been open-source for a long time, who cares if there were no major security holes in the OS itself for over a year. Does that mean its flawless?? Far from it. Also, you come here and compare flaws in FreeBSD/Linux with IIS for Windows?!? There is more to unix system than the OS itself. SSH, APACHE, MySQL, sendmail (oh god sendmail), and what not. Did you forget about those? They all have had security problems in the past, and plenty of them.
My point was that open-source software is FAR FROM flawless like YOU claimed the whole point of open-source would be.
Of course, yet again, I am stupid, have no clue, you know it better, I have never heard of security, and am in general a stupid idiot which does not have a brain.
So sorry I pissed you off so much... LOL
|
Firstly - how are your features oh so much better? Because honestly I don't see anything so incredible. It's a well put together system, but it's not rocket science.
The fact is, you're talking about me as an "open-source lover" as if there's something horribly wrong about that. And you're arguing that open-source software has FAR more bugs (you actually said that). And yet, you're running that. So why didn't you develop in Windows, with ASP.Net and SQL Server?
Oh, and when was the last time you wrote an Apache module? I'm sorry, never? I've written quite a number of them and trust me, the source is essential. No book could replace being able to actually see how things are working. Talk from experience, not your time at the local bookstore.
No, you didn't say that. You said that open-source software has a lot more security flaws. Which is false.
What is also false, is that Apache, MySQL, sendmail, etc. is part of a Unix system. No, it's not. Apache, MySQL, sendmail and the like are applications that run most often on Unix systems. Apache and MySQL both have Win32 ports.
Now, compare Apache to IIS over the last three years and honestly tell me Apache has had more flaws. Do the same with any two open-source vs. closed-source applications.
I only say you have no clue, because you simply don't. Go visit bugtraq, read it for a few months. There are security companies who just constantly audit the open-source code. So let's think logically. The open-source code is getting audited by numerous, separate people ALL the time. The closed-source code is audited by the developers and that's it.
Logically, what is going to have more bugs? Seriously, you'd have to be extremely naive to think open-source is going to be buggier. That is one of the many advantages of open-source software.
The Zend suite of software is an attempt to push PHP commercial. The Zend engine in PHP is completely open-source and if the encoder was half decent, there would be no problem pushing it open-source.