[embedding-shape]

> the principle that open-source software can't do anything nefarious because the source is open just hasn't held up for a lot of reasons

You've been living on such a principle? That sounds insane, why would something not be nefarious just because you can read the code?

The way I was "raised" by FOSS greybeards screaming at me through web forums, was that any software available on 3rd party websites anyone can upload anything to, will be filled with viruses and malware, and this was early 2000s. Surely people still advocate for this mindset today, when it's even more likely?

[Defletter]

> You've been living on such a principle? That sounds insane

Fun fact, I've spent the last few days fretting over whether to add H2 to my FabricMC mod. The problem being that I don't know what class-loading shenanigans could possibly occur if I jar-in-jar include it: what happens if another mod has H2 jar-in-jar included? Will my mod only reference its own version of H2? What implications [if any] would that have? Or will the Fabric Loader pick one? What if another mod has H2 shaded instead? Will the classes clash differently? What if, instead of jar-in-jar including it, I shade and relocate it? Does H2 or JDBC rely on reflection or services that would render it non-functional?

All recommendations point to using/creating a mod specifically for that library and depending on it. As luck would have it, one already exists on Modrinth. Except... I'm then requiring anyone who trusts my mod to also install this other mod that I have no control over. I just looked at the source code and it looks fine, but that's if you trust that the published jars are the exact result of that source code: maybe there's something malicious in the Gradle Wrapper binary. This mod could at any time become malicious and how would I detect that?

Guess what? I asked around and was summarily told to stop worrying, that it's fine. We on this website need to realise that we're a minority: NO ONE is routinely (or even occasionally) scrutinising the source code of the stuff they install from third-party websites. I have never, not once, seen anyone hash a downloaded file to check that it matches what's on the website. At the very most, I've seen people find the Github repo, see that it has a lot of stars, and then assume it's safe.

[emodendroket]

No, I've not been "living on" such a principle but it was a big claim for "the bazaar."

[embedding-shape]

Aha, wasn't that argument more about that closed source software is more likely to hide stuff you don't agree with, than FOSS? Not necessarily that FOSS won't have any viruses or malware, but it's at least less likely. That was my take away, but long time ago I read the book admittedly, I might misremember or transformed it automagically over time.

[CapsAdmin]

This is my takeaway as well. Having the source code open makes it auditable, if not by you, maybe the community.

The free software license specifically gives the software an extra advantage in that changes to the software must be shared openly, if distributed as as binaries.

[jankdc]

> source code open makes it auditable, if not by you, maybe the community

I think part of why this social engineering works so well is it takes advantage of that "many eyes" trust, where people are prone to delegating the responsibility of checking to the community and not do due diligence on themselves. I know I'm susceptible to it if I see a Github repo with more than 10k stars on it.

[abc123abc123]

You'd better read it again, because that claim does not figure in that text. You might mean that with more eyes on the code, more bugs are found, than with no eyes on the code. But that is not what you are saying here.

[rectang]

Here is the relevant quote from _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_[1], which was given the name _Linus's Law_[2] in honor of Linus Torvalds:

> Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.

[1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_law

[tuwtuwtuwtuw]

> You've been living on such a principle?

I have not, but in case you missed it, this principle has been used by open source proponents for decades. I'm an open source developer myself, but always found it odd.

[nixosbestos]

No, it's really not, and really hasn't been. Do people truly have such poor reasoning and logic skills?

"Closed source software is inscrutable, impossible for me to fix, impossible for me to review the source" is absolutely a distinct statement from "it is impossible to hide malware in open-source software". I've literally never heard someone claim the latter.

(edit for coherency, thanks graemep)

[birksherty]

> "it is impossible to hide malware in open-source software"

No nobody said "exactly that". But many times I've seen people claiming to trust open source as it is safer and people can check and build themselves. Seen it too many times. But reality is different than what is claimed.

[thwarted]

It's safer in the same sense as if you're paranoid about your date being a serial killer, you meet them in a public venue. It doesn't mean your date isn't a serial killer, but the risk profile is different because other people can be involved/witness/have context.

You didn't use the word "safe", you used the relative term "safer", and on average, it is harder to hide ill intent in open source software, there's a greater chance it will eventually be discovered. The blast radius is larger for open source (because the barrier to using it is lower), which increases the number of people impacted, but an increase in the number of people impacted also increases the chance of discovery and motivation to address it once discovered.

[tuwtuwtuwtuw]

I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say.

[graemep]

I think you mean open source in the second bit in quotes.

[fsflover]

This is not the argument at all. It's just easier to discover malware in closed software.