[nycbug-talk] interesting read

[Matthew Terenzio]

I don't understand the whole argument. If the general consensus in the 
Healthcare industry was that a certain product was best and it was open 
source, I'd trust my life to it. If it was closed source, I would too.
There is no necessary relationship between license and quality, but 
many here probably feel that peer review makes better software. It's 
just probably not that likely that a community would grow around a 
pacemaker product because they are all building real important things 
like Podcasters. : )

On May 21, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Dru wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 alex at pilosoft.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's keep in mind that the trustworthiness of a life-critical
>>> application has everything to do with how that program was written 
>>> and
>>> absolutely nothing to do with the license under which it was 
>>> released.
>> Okay. Back to original question. What is the benefit for you to be 
>> able to
>> recompile source code for your pacemaker?
>
>
> That's Ike's grandfather, not mine ;-)
>
>
>>> Go back to the original URL. Open source is not a product.
>> Did I say it was? I said, "open source licensing is not beneficial 
>> for a
>> life-critical application".
>
>
> Why? At first glance, this sounds like the argument "open source 
> licensing is not beneficial for security applications". If that's not 
> what you mean, please clarify.
>
> Dru
> _______________________________________________
> % NYC*BUG talk mailing list
> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> %Be sure to check out our Jobs and NYCBUG-announce lists
> %We meet the first Wednesday of the month
>