Slashdot Mirror
Evaluating Open Source
CowboyRobot writes "Jordan Hubbard cofounded FreeBSD and now oversees the Darwin implementation of BSD for Apple. He describes open source as 'finally being openly acknowledged as a commercial engineering force-multiplier and important option for avoiding significant software development costs.' And thus, companies need to know how to evaluate open source engineering as an option for them. In a new article titled Open Source to the Core, Hubbard goes through a typical open source adoption process."
Doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of anything. Mainly, though, it can lead to more complicated development, especially during a transition period. Also, with the change in how technical support is handled, more problems can arise at that point. Basically, the best thing to do is check everything out as much as you can and be very prepared. A wide margin of error, especially in the time department, can lead to a great deal of success when making a potentially massive transition.
I am feeling fat and sassy
I like the idea of Darwin, a free Unix-like OS specifically designed to work well on a Macintosh, and had hoped that it would be developed as a real and useful BSD but from what I can see, it is simply the core of Mac OS X and no one seems to be interested in making it useful OS on its own right.
Maybe things have changed since the last time I tried Darwin but there are a few problems with it, such as:
1. No partitioning/formatting options during install
2. No way to setup Airport
3. No way to add users/groups without knowing arcane NetInfo commands
4. Some commands do not make use of the full console dimensions; probably because no one wants to fix Termcap.
5. No security announcements lists or patches.
6. No binary releases have being generated since 7.0.1.
Furthermore, I have seen people who wanted to use Darwin as a server (on a remote Macintosh) told to use Mac OS X Server instead. It seems to me that this is the wrong attitude, that people should actually want Darwin to be useful as a server and and a Unix workstation. It is a shame.
Back in 60s and 70s, the era of huge collaboration that gaves us UNIX, Internet etc, everything was open sourced. Of course, the targeted audience who participated tended to be those in academia (outside the corporations that developed them). Guess what? Open source softwares was then and there and yes, it was viable enough to be an academic experiment and commercial at the same time. I think the only thing different now is that we have the same revolution with a wider audience and a sensibility that will sustain open source movement for a long time to come.
Activists United
Because fewer Indians cost less than more Indians. Duh.
Unknown host pong.
Maybe because:
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
IBM started throwing its weight behind Linux because it was taking off.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
While I would say "B", as I'm assuming you would, I don't know that you're right for the reasons you might think you are.
While I'd agree that a Python/Debian/Postgre/Apache developer is probably more adept, I don't think it has to do with the language. It has to do with the fact that (generally speaking, of course) OSS people are more heavily self-taught amateurs-turned-pros. To me, that displays a passion for the craft that others might not have (though to be fair, many MS-based developers are self-taught too, albeit on systems that are much less in-your-face from a learning perspective... OSS developers have to spend a fair bit time learning the systems first, before the development skills, while MS'ers don't necessarily). Add to that my opinion that autodidacts have skills that are generally more flexible and adaptive, and "B" is definitely preferable.
But the differentiator is not the language. In reality, while B is better than A, a developer that can excel at both A and B is better than either an A or B; a truly gifted develeper isn't limited by language. Overall, B is more desirable to me because I know a B has likely invested more time and passion in learning and honing their skills, not because they know <insert language here>.