Columnists: Open Source Versus Closed Source Security
641242
In the age old battle between open source and closed source operating systems and applications, can either of them really be considered more secure than the other?
56045
The security threat posed by wireless networks has been a hot-button issue for years now. Are they still a prime target for hackers? Computerworld editors Preston Gralla and David Ramel take opposing sides on the issue.
15661
A gut reaction to news that hackers broke into The SCO Group&#39;s Web site and mocked its claims to own parts of the Linux operating system might be a feeling that SCO brought it on itself by trying to constrain the open source movement through its legal
564910
Microsoft CEO tells customers that Windows carries lower total costs and is more secure than the open-source operating system. By John Foley.
534993
Linux is more secure than most commercial software, which confirms what its proponents already knew. A four-year study released today by Coverity, reports Linux has a low bug count, making the code more stable and secure.
403876
Blog: Those who consider acquiring an open source company must be careful not to upset the associated open source community.  Is there such thing as a hostile takeover in open source?
246704
The security threats against business-technology systems continue to multiply. Not only do malicious worms and viruses such as Blaster and Bagle continue to wreak havoc, but security pros
238796
Three Illuminata research notes take a look at some of the intersections between cloud computing, the way operating systems are designed, and open source.
676099
This is what the future looks like.  Heavy adoption of open source at the core of commercial software so that developers can focus on pushing the envelope on innovation, not reinventing wheels that provide no discernible differentiation.
377131
Almost everything that can be said has been said about the latest moves by Microsoft to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Linux. Countless pundits and analysts have pointed out that Microsoft threats are toothless. Some have noted that Microsoft has singled out Linux and OpenOffice, the biggest threats to its monopoly on operating systems and office suites. Surely Microsoft could claim that the *BSDs infringe on similar patents if not the same ones. But the *BSDs do not pose as great a threat to the company. Others have pointed out that Microsoft would be insane to pull an SCO and sue its own customers. Still others have noted that IBM and/or OIN could respond to a patent war with a massive retaliation in patent infringement claims. I have no doubt that Microsoft has lifted a lot of GPL code (more likely algorithms) for Windows, which would prevent Microsoft from following through with its threats. To do so would require that Microsoft open its own code to scrutiny. The list goes on, and others have covered the angles very well. There is one perspective I haven't yet seen, at least not the way I propose to deal with it. This perspective follows below.
216258
Microsoft&#39;s CEO argues that Windows is cheaper and more secure than its open-source rival. Do the facts support him? By John Foley.
467808
Devshed has posted a new article covering one of the hottest topics in the PHP community right now - security.   Security in a scripting language such as PHP is more developer-dependent than language-dependent. In other words, although the language offers you the tools to create secure code, it cannot prevent insecure code. Thus, the degree to which code is secure almost entirely depends on how security conscious a developer is.   The article looks at three security-related topics:  Register globals error reporting code exposure  and for each provides explanation and code where needed to help the reader understand the issues and possible problems with them.
5380
Open source is not always the best software.  When it's not, use something else.  Is this complicated?
431542
Open source has many good uses.  Beating up one's competitors shouldn't be the primary one.
688153
Will it become redundant in the face of encryption and protection on endpoints in an open network?
368060
The Story: What?s in a name? Back in the days of the Gingrich revolution, the nastiest label you could pin on a politician was ?liberal.? And now that open source has become an essential technology, the quickest way to get a rise out of an open source executive (and to get flamed on dozens of blogs) is to say his or her company is ?commercial.?[ Slideshow: 2007's top underreported tech stories ]                                                    No matter what you call them, open source companies have been steadily integrating parts of the hated commercial software subscription model into their business. First it was support, and now it is software access. Say it ain?t so, Linus.MySQL, for example, will charge users of its enterprise edition to use the code, not just for support as has been the traditional open source business model. ?We are looking for ways to extend our offerings in a way that can be monetized,? bluntly says Kaj Arno, the company?s VP for community.Chander Kant, founder of the open source storage software company Zmanda, is likewise frank about the need to drive revenue. Speaking of the open source community as a whole, he says, ?We are not a charity. We need to monetize.?Recognizing that charging to use open source software flies in the face of the original open source premise of freely sharable code open to everyone, Arno is quick to note that the paid version of Workbench has code and features not found in the free version ? and that the free version ?is not crippled.? Arno calls the move an experiment, and acknowledges that MySQL needs to move carefully to avoid upsetting the often quick-tempered open source community.Is this a trend? Red Monk analyst Stephen O?Grady says it is: ?Ultimately when you look at a high-profile firm like MySQL embracing it, it?s difficult to conclude anything else.?InfoWorld blogger (and IBM employee) Savio Rodrigues notes another example. In a recent blog post, he looked at changes to JBoss since it was purchased by Red Hat Software and concluded: ?The Fedora/JBoss subscription is just like the software subscription business model that commercial software vendors have been using for decades.?Does that mean a company that adopts the usage-based pricing model isn?t really open-source? That?s an interesting point, since as Zmanda?s Kant acknowledges, ?the litmus test of open source is control of the code.? Open source software delivered through appliances keeps the access ? and thus control ? away from users, he notes. But code binaries distributed as software remain open to their users ? for now, at least.The Bottom Line: Have MySQL and Red Hat run away from the principles of open source? Who cares. The real point is that the open source business model is evolving away from the ?free? model and toward an alternative development approach for commercial software. If you adopted open source due to its cost, you may not save as much as you thought. If you adopted open source for the access to source code or the community-supported development approach that is supposed to result in better software, it?s not yet clear if the greater commercialization will enhance those aspects or drive away the true believers and make open source no different than the old-fashioned commercial offerings.Complete list of 2007 underreported stories: 1.? Java is becoming the new Cobol 2.? Sun Microsystems is back in the game 3.? Hackers take aim at Mac OS X 4.? There are some threats you can worry less about 5.? Companies may have found a way around H-1B visa limits 6.? Open source?s new commercial strategy 7.? End-to-end Ethernet finally arrives 8.? Blade servers arrive for the masses 9.? BI is dead; long live BI 10. Balance of power shifts to software buyers
197796
Self assembly Open source is moving beyond the real worlds of business and consumer systems into the more experimental sphere of personal gadgetry.â¦