What does this mean with regard to open source vs microsoft?

[bluedolphin]

Gerald M. Weinberg, author of The Psychology of Computer Programming, came to an interesting conclusion back in 1971 - �gIf builders built houses the way programmers built programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilisation.

[andrew0211]

Open Source VS Microsoft is an argument. While Open Source products, such as Linux allow you to change the way they run, Microsoft products don't allow you to - otherwise, you'd be breaking the Microsoft End User Licence Agreement (EULA). Many think this is unfair and that they should be able to change the way a program runs, seeing as they bought it and if they mess up their product, it's their own fault and if they distribute it, it's the person's fault for downloding or installing it in the first place.

[bluedolphin]

Thanks Andrew....so does it mean that because ms does not allow people to mess with thier coding the programs are more vulnerable to the "woodpeckers" read viruses and worms?

[booksworth]

I think Weinberg missed the point, although I can see where he was aiming. I would suggest "If houses were built of as many active components as computer programs, we would never have got to the point of civilisation". I know a man whose mission in life is to get MS to adopt sound s/w engineering practices, but finds it an uphill struggle; but on the other hand I have come across some really buggy open source stuff. So, without being able to find the entire context* of Weinberg's second law, it looks to me like he is neutral in the MS vs OS debate. *Anyone know when and where he said this?