On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Chuck Grimes wrote:
> It seems to me that one interesting contradiction to `free' enterprise
> copyright protection and M$uck business paranoia is that with an open
> source OS, all the built-in security systems are completely understood
> (transparent via open source code) by the administrators responsible
> (and hackers), so these systems are relatively easy to modify, upgrade
> and maintain. You don't have to buy a contract with M$uck or wait on
> them for their proprietary and overpriced help, upgrades, and
> patches. The result is security holes, exploits, and attacks in open
> source are immediately posted on various news groups, usually with
> temporary fixes, soon followed with in-depth documentation, tested
> patches and installation instructions, often within a few days,
> sometimes within hours of discovery.
This is the crucial paradox: making the code secret doesn't necessarily make the system more secure! As you argue, code transparency helps a community of users correct flaws and exploits quickly and efficiently (at least compared to MS).
Open source: it's secure, it's widely accessible to computer users, and every day it contradicts the claim that innovation and productivity in industrial societies depend on free market competition/ accumulation of profits/private ownership. What's not to love?
Seriously, I think this is a feasible paradigm for the expansion of socialism in our society: network administrators use open-source web servers, people get fed up with the malware and ditch Outlook, etc., and bit by bit our society relies on more and more noncapitalist production. --It won't be a bloody revolution; it'll be the clickclack of computer keyboards! Yeah, socializing tangibles like health care and autos will be a tougher row to hoe, but open source software, libraries, and city/state parks are ideological boots stomping the anti-human face of capitalism again and again (to turn Orwell on his head).
Miles