Open Source Software Reliability

Hello every body.
I have this question for discussion.
How much is open source software reliability?
What are factors that make open source software more reliability than non open source software, Or less reliability than non open source software?
I hope every member share me with his/her opinion and information.
Please answer this question at least
How much are you trust in open source software?
1- I highly trust in it
2- That back to the source of it
3- I never trust in it

What do you mean by reliability? In my job reliability is measured as functional availability, which includes fault tolerance.

Hi,
If you mean security by reliable, I think they are more reliable than non open source software, because you and anyone else can see their source, and it is very important for people who are care about security. For example you don't know what happen in windows, maybe Microsoft give some personal information from your computer, and...

-----------
Ya Ali

In my job reliability is measured as functional availability, which includes fault tolerance.

In the following, I'll take the word "reliability" as the ability of a software component to run as the users and / or developers expect to. In short: the lack of bug.

People far more smart than me (for example Eric Steven Raymond and Les Hatton, but I'm sure many more) says that there's some bugs that are found during the first hours of a software components, but the most part rise after many (many can be thousands) years of use (think about the age of a component as users nb x how many time they use it). So re-usability of a component tends to improve its reliability. And open source diffusion of a component ease its re-usability, at least for cost reason, but for adaptability too.

Another big advantage of open source is that you can compile your source with different compiler, for different arch and os, and then resolving some portability issue will improve the component quality by removing unexpected behaviour change. I'm not sure that many software company can easily make as many test as done by the mass of open source users.

I'm not sure the fact that open source developers don't have a commercial pressure to release their softwares, nor that many people can have a look to the code to correct it, have a big impact on the reliability. But it's true (at least for me) that if I'm really paranoid, it's easiest to trust something you can see (and understand) that a blackbox. The "understand" part is important, everybody can see in a source code that a socket is open and some data are send, but who can detect a mathematical leak in a cryptographic algorithm ?

To end:
take a look at http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ where Eric Steven Raymond explain that far better that i do.
Buy _EVERY_ book of Les Hatton, read all his available writing at http://www.leshatton.org/ (This is the third god of the computer area, just after B&K)

at least in open source you know whatz there and whatz going under the hood,,,unlike windows(M$ sucks) where u have no idea of whats there inside teh code....even u r losing ur valuable iformation to these M$ ppl but u don't know nything about it...coz the code is hidden....M$ thinks that the end user is a stupid fellow...I do accept this fact...nyone who uses M$ windows is a dumb/stupid fellow.....this is teh way M$ is making money...by targeting dumb ppl...*nix is meant for tech-savvy...agreed...but if you dont know whats happening internally u shudl better be using windows only....

at least in open source you know whatz there and whatz going under the hood,,,unlike windows(M$ sucks) where u have no idea of whats there inside teh code....even u r losing ur valuable iformation to these M$ ppl but u don't know nything about it...coz the code is hidden....M$ thinks that the end user is a stupid fellow...I do accept this fact...nyone who uses M$ windows is a dumb/stupid fellow.....this is teh way M$ is making money...by targeting dumb ppl...*nix is meant for tech-savvy...agreed...but if you dont know whats happening internally u shudl better be using windows only....

Nothing to deal with reliability: every software have bug, open sourced or not!

More over, this kind of speech is, imho, dangerous since you're over-simplify the reality and you make a bad advertising of the open source community. If you want to criticize microsoft, or any others companies, please use an argumentation, and don't insult their users (have you really never use a windows box?).

To end it, one purpose of _MANY_ linux ditros like UBUNTU is to be user-friendly, and I think it's more true than windows (for somebody who haven't the habit of an other OS), I install it for some people which haven't any knowledge in computer, and it works great for this. Saying that there are tech-aware people and there are others is bullshit since everybody is the dumb of somebody, it's bullshit since I don't want to bother me in my every-day life with a computer even if i have some knowledge about computing, it's bullshit since _EVERY_ discovering and invention have more value if they are usable by everybody, and not just a few people who are considering themselves as an elite.

Thank you for your sharing , but this thread don't tend to make ads for linux or to criticize Microsoft


Software Reliability is defined as :
The probability of failure-free software operation for a specified period of time in a specified environment. Software Reliability is also an important factor affecting system reliability
There are three main factors make Open Source software more reliability than non:
1-The fact that developers are usually also users of the software.
2-The public availability of the source code
3-The fact that developers are members of a community of developers.
I have much about that ,but I am still waiting for your opinion.
Noteon't forget sharing in the poll

Where are you men?
Here is information about Software reliability models:
A proliferation of software reliability models have emerged as people try to understand the characteristics of how and why software fails, and try to quantify software reliability. Over 200 models have been developed since the early 1970s
Most software models contain the following parts: assumptions, factors, and a mathematical function that relates the reliability with the factors. The mathematical function is usually higher order exponential or logarithmic.
Software modeling techniques can be divided into two subcategories: prediction modeling and estimation modeling. Both kinds of modeling techniques are based on observing and accumulating failure data and analyzing with statistical inference.

Please, Share in the poll

I have been using open source software, Debian sid, for several years for my business. It has been way less problematic that Win98se ever was. No data loss. System always seems to work. I am very happy with the quality and the security.

HMMM, Personally I don't think you are going to get a lot of "no trust" marks on this poll. Most the people on this forum use some form of Linux or BSD. Most of those systems in and of themselves are open source and we would not use them if we didn't trust them. As for applications, I have encountered wonderfully reliable software and horribly unreliable software. This set of conditions is the same in non-open source software markets, you have crappy and great commercial software. I did work for a company with a marginally reliable product, though it still baffles me how that place continues to stay open and running. Regardless, it's all about finding the right software for your needs. That need can be just as easily filled with open source software or commercial software depending on your preferences and how well a given piece of software meets the requirements for your application needs.

When I think of reliable, I don't think of "bug-free" or "perfect security." I mean, I consider my home alarm system and my parents reliable, but just like anything else, they're far from perfect.

When I call open source software reliable, I say its not secretly a virus that wants to totally murder your computer. Let's just face it, if trojan horse viruses were open source (sorta defeats the purpose), they'd have a hard time getting past antivirus software, right?

The layer of transparency: getting the see the actual code before you build it, lets you avoid any software that'll surprise you (for the advanced user, of course). If the code doesn't say that it'll send all your private files to Bill Gates himself, then it won't. Computer code is cool like that.

Plus, there's reliability in community. When tons of people from all over the world are working on an open source project, the chances that one of them is a jerk and will take the time to slip malicious code under the radar will probably come under fire from the rest of the community before it's ever shipped to the public. Maybe that's a naive way of thinking, but I've never felt threatened by open source software.

Virus programmers love binaries because it hides their evilness behind a veil of 1's and 0's. But with open source, where you can see exactly what's building your software, you can find out if you're building it with potentially harmful code.

I'm a little confused about the option 2: That back to the source of it. What does it mean? If its meaning is similar to "somewhat trustworthy" then I'd vote for it. Infact, if there was a notch under "somewhat trustworthy" but above "I never trust in it" that would describe very accurately what I would vote for.
My expirience with open source so far tought me to apply a strong grain of salt when reading phrases like "powerfull" and "easy-to-use" in descriptions of open source apps.
I don't rely solely on open source. But I neither rely exclusively on Windoze. And thought of relying on a Mac just plain scares me. Mix-n-match them, whenever I can...
By the way, why are some participants in this discussion trying to re-define the term "reliable"?

Linux and Open Source Software is all I use. As for 'reliability', my system hasn't crashed since Sept. '06 when I bid my final farewell to Windows. With Win 98 it was almost daily, and with XP, at least twice a week.

yes I do,
Its reliable, though to be honest, scalability and portability is a problem sometimes.

Originally Posted by dragonslayer48dx Linux and Open Source Software is all I use. As for 'reliability', my system hasn't crashed since Sept. '06 when I bid my final farewell to Windows. With Win 98 it was almost daily, and with XP, at least twice a week.

i think so ,the world must have one kind fish ,which swing on the land