On 3/6/16, Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com> wrote:

I'm a practical person. I want systems that work, not that provide some sort of philosophical warm fuzzies.

Economies of scale are real things. It is nice for a hundred million people to be able to download patches to their systems automatically without even having to think about it or understand what a patch is

It is nice for people to be able to download a game or a to-do application without having to personally audit

Open and secure does not preclude any of these things.

Where's the evidence for your assertion?

What is your potential when you're chained to a wall? With open, possibility is a right of others, with closed, you forclose it upon them, and likely to serve yourself. That may be part of the potential.

If you look at Android vs. iOS, iOS, with its much more restrictive environment, seems (as a practical matter) to be more secure.

iOS/Android haven't even hit 10 years old and neither they nor their underlying platforms truly have openness in their core ethos so they can't really be contrasted against each other in the suggested way.

What you're suggesting is impossible. There is no way any of us

The general reply is that the overall model of open and all these related things simply hasn't had enough time to develop, execute, and be evaluated in a world that has only known closed. However one thing is of absolute certainty: believing that getting off the rock is impossible... will never get you off the rock.