Peter Duniho wrote:
Open source does make access even easier, but it's by no means required for
the purpose of providing sufficient inspection. I definitely disagree with
the claim of "significantly easier to detect flaws". Open source isn't more
readable, it's not less obfuscated, it's not easier to validate. It's just
publicly available. That's all.

you haven't been looking at much code, proprietary or open source if
you believe so; when you write code that you know is potentially going
to be scrutinized by the best mind out there -- whether it is going
to be the case or not, but you can be it will, by your next potential
employer -- if said potential employer is not a moron -- next time you
apply for a job and by people who matter in the field, the average
programmer tends to do things differently it seems than what is
done for code which is known to remain proprietary (who's going to look
at it? Pointy Haired Bosses?) and where being readable and unobfuscated
is a known bad carreer move (do you really want your code to be easily
taken over by the nice folks of the newly opened field office in
Bangalore?); I have seen good and bad code in either proprietary
or open sources, you bet, but by far, the worst piece of junk I
ever had to look at were proprietary, no contest.

--Sylvain

now this is of course completely off the topic, isn't it? :-)