Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I always found Linus' Law -- note, coined by ESR, not Linus -- quite... uh... shallow. It seems trivially obvious but is subtly misleading because it makes a quantitative argument ("enough eyeballs") without addressing the qualitative aspect, i.e. whose eyeballs they are matters more than anything.

A 1000 of us regular devs scanning a piece of code is not as effective as a single review by, say, Tavis Ormandy. So "enough eyeballs" is only "enough" when one of those set happens to belong to a Tavis O. or the likes.

Not to mention, this assumes a 1000 of us even look at the code, which is statistically never true. Approximately 100% of us just install the software without looking at a single line of code. Hence the code auditability aspect of open-source software never really applied. And hence, "supply chain attacks."

Unfortunately, this misguided "law" was taken as gospel by many, and as you found out, still is.

If making things in the open was more secure, everyone would post their tank designs online.

Instead they court martial anyone who talks about the designs. Because obviously, telling everyone every aspect of your security isn’t actually more secure. How would you know how to do a 24-step process to exploit something if you have no idea what code is running on their server?

Imagine trying to build a cheat for CS:GO if you had no access to the game and could only play it via a remote connection. Good luck.

As much as people rail against it, security through obscurity is actually a valid defence.