Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should the web app code be public? #231

Closed
angelPL opened this issue May 12, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Should the web app code be public? #231

angelPL opened this issue May 12, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@angelPL
Copy link

angelPL commented May 12, 2023

No description provided.

@HermanMartinus
Copy link
Owner

Open-sourcing a project like Bear Blog is generally seen as a positive move. It's like opening the hood of a car – people can learn from it, customize it, and troubleshoot issues much easier. They can understand exactly what they're using, which is pretty cool.

As for security, you're right that it could potentially expose weak spots. However, it also means that those weak spots can be identified and fixed. It's like a constant peer-review process. But if a project doesn't accept contributions like Bear, it does put the onus on the core team to keep an eye on things. There is no information on Bear (bar email addresses) that isn't already public (it is a blogging platform after all). This means if anything terribly bad happens (Django is pretty secure, so this isn't much of a problem), we patch it and restore a backup.

So, all in all, it's about transparency and trust. Just like any other tool, it's how you use it that matters. You wouldn't want to open-source something without considering the implications, but it's not inherently a bad – or good – thing. It's just a different way of doing things.

@angelPL angelPL closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale May 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants