Reference no: EM132153830

Question - Reply to this article with 2 APA format references. When software was first being developed, it was rare to see it offered commercially. Open source software was the norm, due to the demand stemming from a sought-after particular program or purpose. Therefore, the code was either written by the people who needed it themselves or they paid to have it written (Von Hippel & Von Krogh, 2003). Since most of the software was written in a research culture, it was assumed to be freely available for others to use and modify, as needed. Commercial software, on the other hand, does not welcome modifications nor is it freely available. Some other notable differences between open source and commercial software are how accessible the source code is to the general public, whether or not the software is proprietary, and how vastly can it be used (i.e. was it created for one focus, or can it be used for multiple).

Open source is available for several reasons: to get more "eyes" on the code to help with debugging, to allow whomever desires to use the software freely, and to be transparent and show there is no hidden code or malware. Commercial software is generally used for a specific purpose and is not meant to be modified for other uses. It is also not available for free but must be purchased. One last difference is that commercial software must rely on its own employees (with incoming error reports that were solicited to consumers) to find bugs in their program. As a cybersecurity professional, part of the job includes testing for vulnerabilities. This aspect could be equated to bringing peace as a peacemaker, as Jesus discussed in Matthew 5:9, where it says, "blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (NIV). When vulnerabilities are found, it brings to light dangerous areas, thus making the system more at peace.

References - Von Hippel, E., & Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the private-collective innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 208-223.