# How important is openness?



## ShruggingAtlas (Mar 8, 2016)

In another thread it was asked why critical infrastructure was still trusted to Windows. I do not wish to rehash that question, but it makes me wonder, how important is openness to you?

I have written banking software for about 15 years, and I used to think that the occasionally shoddy approach to security, resource management and even algorithms was down to lack of better software. Over time I have swung to the belief it really is down to no one caring to provide better solutions. Akin to how there are few open GPUs since no one seems to demand that their GPU be open.

I cannot really say that I have ever chosen a pension fund based their openness with their process, nor a shirt maker. How about you? Is BSD style transparency a selection criteria outside hard- and software?

I'm thinking I should make it one.


----------



## kpa (Mar 8, 2016)

I hope you are aware that the BSD license makes no demands for the licensee to contribute back anything or to publish his/her modifications to the original source code or allow anyone to scrutinize the work methods that went into the creation of the product that was derived from the BSD licensed piece of code. So now, what is this "BSD style transparency" you're referring to?


----------



## ShruggingAtlas (Mar 8, 2016)

Mentioning the license was a mistake, I was hoping to keep my question short(ish). Let me try again.

I'll argue that the open source approach, regardless of license, produces more useful software than the closed approach. It comes about by people pitting their ideas and implementations against each other and everyone being able to gauge the benefits of one approach vs another. I find it strange that this is only a business model in software, yet I don't see it in other industries.

Sticking with the pension fund example and assuming it is possible, would you choose a pension fund who's internal workings were made obvious over a cheaper closed one? Posed more generally, are you part of this community because of some ideal or because FreeBSD just happens to be the best tool for your particular task?


----------



## Crivens (Mar 8, 2016)

There is also the scientific model which is pretty close to what you describe as an open-source business model. You place your ideas and theories in the open for all and everyione to see and pick full of holes. The more they try, and can't make it break, the more likely it is that your theorie is sound.

And yes, I would (and have) selected a pension fund based on their track record in decision making. That is only possible if they have a clear plan and are open enough about it so you can distinguish between chance and plan. Otherwise, the plan of that pension fund might be more of a pyramid game, where the creators run away with your money. 

You might put it like this: Everyone who wants your trust should better be prepared to earn that trust. So openess is important when it comes to trust. What is imprtant to trust? Where do you need that chance to verify processes?


----------



## ShruggingAtlas (Mar 8, 2016)

Agreed, what I am asking is largely whether scientific process as a business model, has value on its own or only as a means to an end - to the people who read this forum.

I agree with the supposition that openness is important to trust, and yet is is my experience that most asset managers are very closed. On the example of pyramid games, Bernie Madoff famously pulled this off for years even though it was pointed out that, mathematically speaking, achieving his reported results was impossible. Among reasonable investors you would expect a demand for some kind of openness, but it seems everyone has just agreed that it is so rare it is not worth the effort.



Crivens said:


> Where do you need that chance to verify processes?



When I say verify processes I am talking about having sufficient information available to verify that my manager is sticking to his plan and not relying on chance.


----------



## a59303 (Mar 10, 2016)

Hi,


Crivens said:


> And yes, I would (and have) selected a pension fund based on their track record in decision making. That is only possible if they have a clear plan and are open enough about it so you can distinguish between chance and plan.





Crivens said:


> You might put it like this: Everyone who wants your trust should better be prepared to earn that trust. So openess is important when it comes to trust. What is imprtant to trust? Where do you need that chance to verify processes?



Not to be too inflammatory, as I find I am sometimes, but it strikes me that openness is not the same as track record.  More than that, earning trust, again is a matter of experience not necessarily, the amount the purveyor is willing to tell you.  I assume that pension funds like many things now-a-days are externally rated, and so can be analyzed for their trust-ability and viability from external sources.  Maybe the advantage of openness is participation in the process which goes into the product, or insight into it, which may give one little if one does not understand the nuances of that business.

a5'


----------

