|
|
|
|
|
|
by q845712
1138 days ago
|
|
|
> > Open sourcing code is also extra work that has to be done and will make the software more expensive to make and maintain. > Not if there is an established standard and practice of writing code in an open source way. I've worked on closed source corporate software most of my career and then primarily corporate-sponsored open source in the last two years. In my own limited experience, it is strictly less work to have closed-source software. There's less concern / hesitations / hand-wringing over mover quickly when you have the illusion of privacy, and relatedly having a requirement that (almost) everything (eventually) becomes public only adds steps. Certain things always have to happen privately (examples include: internal discussions that include organizationally privileged information, certain CVE handling steps, fully secured builds with proper corporate attestations, and internal project-tracking) so you wind up with a private set of systems to maintain as well as the public ones. Maybe there's some orgs out there that "do it right" in terms of having OSS projects not add overhead, but I doubt it's possible in orgs with as much need for privacy and security as most fortune 1k co.s and governments. |
|
|
To the contrary, governmemt is where the need for transparency should be at its highest. Putting "efficiency" or "speed" above transparency about the inner workings of publicly-funded and publicly-made (by government employees) software is insane.
There should not be any expectation of privacy for government employees in the field of records and information.