This is an argument between open source and closed source proprietary code, and the impact of security among each. Why would open source operating systems be any safer than store bought systems if the code if publicly available? This article refers to Linus's Law and how it relates to open source. I find the concept fascinating, yet comically obvious and common sense. The Internet is a great example of Linus's Law in that because of the amount of people that use it, make it more valuable. If there were only 100 people on the internet, would it be such a useful tool? I think the same respect should be shown towards open source. Consider one of the development teams at a major software company. How much possible scrutiny can a finite team produce with respect to security and vulnerabilities? Where as if you have the whole world scrutinizing a code base for weaknesses, the output should be substantially different. The concept of open source lends to the phrase “safer than store bought.” Because there is vast amounts of talented individuals around the world that are willing to make contributions towards development, you will have a much more stable and overall more secure system. Linus's Law, proves this theory. Meticulous developers around the world are today finding, fixing, and improving open source systems. This will not change anytime soon, and proprietary operating systems will be right there.
Reference: Hoepman, J. and Jacobs, B. Increased Security through Open Source, Communications of the ACM, v.50, n.1, Jan 2007
