One of the longest-running arguments here, not just on Open Source but in ZDNet forums generally, involves why Microsoft stuff is so buggy while open source stuff isn't, or doesn't appear to be.
Is Microsoft's problem that it's bad software, or is it just popular?
That's not an either-or question. The answer lies somewhere on a continuum. But the reverse of that question is also important. Is open source software really better than proprietary, or is that just a function of its low market share?
Mozilla's Firefox browser is a great test case. How it responds to its present security problems, and how fast new problems come on, will help us answer these key questions.
Users are already reporting exploits. Statements from Mike Schroepfer, director of engineering at the Mozilla Foundation, that 'We're releasing as soon as we possibly can' sound almost Microsoft-like. But what else could he say?
Regardless of whether your process is proprietary or open source, you still need a process to collect bug reports, test patches, and expedite them to users. That process is always a bottleneck. We don't know whether it's more of a bottleneck (because you can't order around armies of programmers) or less of one (because vast armies of programmers are available).
The good news is we're about to find out.