myth, and it is simply naive to believe that a so-called "bazaar" development model will in anyway guarantee security or even anything in return. Dougman, are you braindead? Yes, you probably are, so no more rhetoric questions. Your only argument for Linux's superiority is: "it can be read." Duh! Who would've thought that? That the code of a FLOSS project can be read (and changed)? But your paper is interesting. At least you don't seem to have read it any more carefully than Mr. Pogson reads his linked-to documents. Because under "5. Summary and Discussion" it says: "Therefore, the most we can read from the overall balance of marks is that open source development approaches do not produce software of markedly higher quality than proprietary software development." Brillo, ignoring reality again, wrote, "it is simply naive to believe that a so-called "bazaar" development model will in anyway guarantee security or even anything in return." Know what a patch of software is? Without the "many eyes" concept there would be far fewer patches these days. I can remember binary patches... FLOSS does allow developers to patch their own software or another's. Often patches are routed through some key person or group, to make sure the big picture is respected but many eyes are still available and enabled to examine the code. It's in the licence. That other OS forbids that examination. There must be a reason... It's not technical but about greed. M$ fears losing control of that other OS if