Security — Open Vs. Closed

AlexGr points out an article in ACM Queue, "Open vs. Closed," in which Richard Ford prods at all the unknowns and grey areas in the question: is the open source or the closed source model more secure? While Ford notes that "there is no better way to start an argument among a group of developers than proclaiming Operating System A to be 'more secure' than Operating System B," he goes on to provide a nuanced and intelligent discussion on the subject, which includes guidelines as to where the use of "security through obscurity" may be appropriate.

What does slashdot think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder which side slashdot will take in this argument...

Well...

[Zebra_X]

While Ford notes that "there is no better way to start an argument among a group of developers than proclaiming Operating System A to be 'more secure' than Operating System B,"

Unless of course Operating System A is Open BSD ;-)

Re:Simple

[bssteph]

The Operating System most secure is the Operating System less used.

I've written the most secure operating system in the world. No, you can't have it. I forgot where I put it.

Re:Well...

[mangaskahn]

I'd say an operating system is very secure when it's dead!

Re:What does slashdot think?

[mopower70]

Operating System B! We are definitely, firmly on the side of Operating System B!

Re:Simple (O/T)

[Tony Hoyle]

Your sig can be simplified to:
ruby -e "[1383424633,543781664,1718971914].each{|x| print([x].pack('N'))}"

You must be using some definition of 'simplified' I wasn't previously aware of.

Re:Security = obscurity

[TheMeuge]

I think you've introduced a new concept here - security through incomprehensibility.