To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
My point was that while Safari and Chrome share the same (open-source) rendering engine, result is much different. Which was a variant of what you meant when you wrote that "Granted, no source is going to magically be of high quality", wether open or closed source, I'd say. Let's consider that a notice to people who would solve all problems by "open-sourcing".
Of course, Safari is not open-source.
I may be reading it backwards when you take the time that an open source license does not automatically make software better quality then point to a browser with a FOSS core engine and several layers of proprietary on top. Chrome using the same core indicates that the FOSS component of it is solid. The exploitable flaw being in the proprietary Safari layers wrapped around the core would seem to support the theory of lower quality in closed licenses.
I don't think an open license is going to make a bad software idea magically better but when comparing general open source against general proprietary, quality looks a little suspect where peer review is lacking.





Member since:
2007-09-06
I didn't realize Safari was open source. If Chrome is very good and shares the same back end rendering engine as Safari and FOSS does not "automagically" mean it is more secure; is your point that Safari is open source or that the closed source wrapped around what is apparently a solid secure rendering engine is broken?
Granted, no source is going to magically be of high quality. Peer review helps quite a bit though and I don't think that's something Safari gets and definitely not something osX gets.
Someone mentioned OpenBSD in a previous comment though...