[nycbug-talk] interesting read

[Marc Spitzer]

On 5/22/05, pete wright <nomadlogic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/05, George R. <george at sddi.net> wrote:
> > alex at pilosoft.com wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > Finally someone who doesn't have knee-jerk reaction "open source good,
> > > proprietary bad". I'm somewhat surprised to response from this list
> > > regarding my comment about open-source/healthcare - I'd expect that much
> > > flame if it was nylxs, not nycbug ;)
> >
> > I'm not Mr. S., and none of us are knee-jerk RMS- (the other 'S' guy)
> > types.  I think you're well aware of that. . .
> >
> > But I think in most of our minds, what we'd assume about medical
> > software is what we'd also take from our buddy Mr. S (chneier) on the
> > topic for cryptographic algorithms.  Peer review is better for critical
> > applications.  Lots of authorities reviwing the code would be good.
> >
> 
> Is this the article you are referring to:
> 
> http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9909.html
> 
> seems to make sense to me, in cryptography or any field really.  IMO
> the open source methodology is akin to the scientific method.  Peer
> review of open, reproducable methodology.  Dunno, it just seems like a
> logical way of going about things in any field.  Although I'm probably
> one of those zealots eh ;p
> 

I will grant you it makes sence in certen problem domains.  The real
question is does it make sence in this one, pacemakers or what ever. 
I do not think it makes sence in this case because we are *not*
talking about a public standard but a small embeded system designed to
keep people alive by a for profit company.  And as I have said before
there is the whole liability thing to be aware of, you may not want to
get involved to risk your house and retirment/kids college fund.

marc