[nycbug-talk] interesting read

[pete wright]

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

-pete


-- 
~~o0OO0o~~
Pete Wright
www.nycbug.org
NYC's *BSD User Group