The entire point is to make it so painful, the party will not want to do so again.
I know its not popular here, but reality is far, far different than the pro-pirate crowd constantly attempts to censor and portray here.
If that's the point then it should be a criminal trial with all of the safeguards that implies (including, in particular, the higher standard of proof).
Ultimately, however, it was realized that even documents that might initially be thought to be internal-only were often needed to be looked over by clients for review, and so eventually everybody had to install Office and use it for everything, simply so that we could compatibly communicate with the company's clients.
That would be a good reason for switching to MS Office except that:
1. MS Office can't reliably open MS Office documents with the same formatting either, and
2. It would be better to use PDF unless you actually need the document to remain editable.
I live in Eastern Europe, too. I process text for a living. That means I take in fairly massive numbers of documents from businesses every week. I've never seen a file arrive in native OpenOffice format. Not once. Of course, everybody could be using OpenOffice to export as.doc, but I don't think so.
I use OpenOffice and I wouldn't dream of sending someone an ODF file unless I was confident they would be able to open it. Since ODF support is half-baked in the current version of MS Office and non-existent in previous versions, that rules it out for most recipients. So yes, if you use OpenOffice then you probably will find yourself needing to export to another format on a regular basis.
(Of course you shouldn't be sending ODF or.doc files unless they need to remain editable: PDF is a more reliable interchange format for finished documents.)
The most credible estimate I've seen for OpenOffice usage in the Czech Republic is 22% from this survey. Together with Poland that was the highest percentage in any of the countries listed. Usage in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria was lower but still respectable.
Nevermind your neighbor... suppose I give you this box... if you push the button your internet speeds will shoot right up. But be forewarned... someone you don't know will be cut off the internet forever. Do you push the button?;)
Yes... yes, I would push it. Such power would put me up amongst the gods! And through the DMCA, I will have that power!!!!!
It doesn't. You still have to authenticate at some point; at most, it reduces the opportunities for a keylogger to catch the password (if you only have to type it in every couple of weeks).
You're assuming (incorrectly) that authentication to your OpenID provider is necessarily by means of a password. This is not a requirement: you could use SSL certificates, Kerberos, smartcards, or any other security technology that takes your fancy. You could also (for example) require that the login be authorised from a machine on your LAN.
I'm not saying that this is common practice (it isn't), but if you want this level of security then there is nothing in the OpenID protocol to prevent you from achieving it.
From an economics perspective, IP relies on legal and cultural protection. I really don't know if copying has a substantial effect on the bottom line, but certainly laws are not much use if the prevailing culture ignores them and there's no easy way to police those laws.
True, the concept of intellectual property does rely on legal protection, almost by definition. The question is: to what extent (if any) does the game industry depend on the concept of intellectual property?
I think this is a fair question to ask, because there are clearly some software publishers (Free/Open/NetBSD, for example) who don't rely on intellectual property in any way relevant to the economics of their existence. Now it may be that the game industry is sufficiently different that this conclusion does not apply, but that needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
I don't know how people can doublethink away the idea that Pirates stealing 5x the number of copies being sold legitimately for a top selling game somehow DOESN'T hurt the industry.
Doublethink is not required. Software is a nonrival good, meaning that enjoyment by one consumer does not detract from its simultaneous enjoyment by other consumers. Simple, straightforward ‘piracy’[1] does not increase the costs incurred by the publisher, nor does it directly reduce the revenue generated. It may indirectly reduce revenue, by displacing sales that would otherwise have occurred. Whether that actually happens is an open question (and a difficult one to answer when every game is different).
To be clear, I'm not saying that this would necessarily justify ‘piracy’ even if the economic effect is zero or positive, but if you want to argue against it on economic rather than moral grounds then I would like to see some evidence.
[1] I'm assuming that you mean copyright infringement as opposed to robbery on the high seas. If the latter then I concede that would have an adverse effect on the publisher.
Accurate stats aren't available but estimates put IE (all version) at between 43% and 63% of users.
That sounds about right, but don't forget that there is much more of a difference coding for IE6 versus IE7 than between (say) Firefox 3.0 and Firefox 4.0. For some purposes it makes sense to lump all versions of IE together, for others it doesn't.
So I'm not sure if I agree with your or not. That sort of share does mean you're obliged to consider Microsoft as some sort of alternative standard if you're a web developer, even if it doesn't mean that everyone else is forced to implement Microsoft's bugs.
There are two thresholds: the point at which you have to allow for Microsoft bugs, and the point at which you can rely on Microsoft bugs. We're above the first threshold still (for IE8 at least, maybe not IE6 any more), but for most purposes fell below the second threshold several years ago. That's what I meant by not dominating the market any more.
IE8 is a standard. Microsoft making it pretty much makes it so.
IE8 has perhaps 20-30% market share currently, and it is about to be superseded. Not to be sniffed at, granted, but not enough to give it much weight as a de facto standard.
Even if you lump all versions of IE together (which from a web design standpoint you can't), its days of market-dominating influence are long gone.
If you're only using a machine for a few hours a day then that's a very reasonable attitude to take, both economically and environmentally. When you're contemplating use as a server (which will presumably run 24/7) the electricity bills stack up much more quickly. The cost won't necessarily be obvious, because it will be mixed in with the rest of your usage, but it will be significant. Back of the envelope calculation: assuming 150W average that would be about 1300kWh per year, costing about GBP 180 (USD 270) where I live. Depending on your circumstances, noise and heat generation may also be factors.
OK, let me explain. The kernel module was what's known as a 'rhetorical device' intended to illustrate a point. The point was that writing a program do commit a dastardly deed, then executing it in a context where it has permission to commit that dastardly deed, is (a) not news, and (b) not even a security violation.
You're reading too much into my subtle sarcasm: I was merely suggesting that this is a highly unsurprising result. All that has been discovered here is a special case of the rule that your security is at risk if you download and execute malicious code.
Spad said "The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds". His point being that they don't receive government-acquired funds. This is true.
That's a very fine distinction, and beside the point. It doesn't matter whether the BBC is part of the government or entirely independent from it: if it raises money though what amounts to taxation then it ought to be held accountable for how that money is spent, in much the same way as central government is accountable for income tax and VAT.
It confuses the discussion because while the licence fee is technically a tax for the purpose of collection, what the BBC (Trust) ultimately decides to do with the licence payers' money has very little to do with the government. The word "tax" has strong connotations and implies a much more direct government involvement in the output of the BBC than is the case.
I must remember that that next time we talk about the Microsoft "Windows Tax":-)
Seriously though, I can see where you are coming from, but I think you are placing too much emphasis on the relationship between the BBC and government, and too little on the circumstances under which the licence fee becomes payable.
You can make a strong argument (provided that you vaguely believe in capitalism) that when you choose to spend your money on groceries at (say) Tesco, what they do with the proceeds is mostly none of your business. The same goes for subscriptions to a commercial TV service such as Sky or Virgin. People tend to take more interest in state-enforced monopolies such as water, and a great deal of interest in how the proceeds of income tax and VAT are spent.
Where does the BBC fit on this spectrum? If the licence fee were payable only for BBC content then economically it would be more closely analogous to a subscription fee than a tax: if you want the service then you pay for it, otherwise you don't. There would be little need for public oversight because wasteful spending would attend to itself: less money spent on good content, therefore lower subscription revenues.
With the current model you pay for the right to operate a television set. It is true that you consequently gain access to BBC content, but that isn't actually what you are paying for when you pay the fee. Therefore, the BBC has no direct commercial incentive to avoid waste and produce good output.
Of course the BBC wouldn't last long if they paid no regard to their audience: the government would quickly be forced to reduce or abolish the licence fee in order to satisfy public opinion. However the feedback mechanism here is through the ballot box, not the hidden hand of the market. That's one very good reason why the licence fee is properly described as a tax, and why the distinction matters to this discussion.
In terms of difficulty of avoidance the licence fee is somewhere in the middle of the range: easier than income tax or VAT, true, but more difficult than Stamp Duty Reserve Tax, and much more difficult than the tax on playing cards we once had. This isn't really relevant though: just because you can avoid an activity doesn't prevent a tax on that activity being a tax.
As I said before I take no position on whether the current method of funding is a good thing or a bad thing. However in terms of accountability for spending I would consider it to be public money, and would be making comparisons with government rather than commercial TV services.
Because when people say "tax payer pounds" it implies pounds acquired by the government via income tax (or other means).
Sigh. The only significant differences are that the BBC is responsible for administering its collection, and that (unusually for the UK) it is a hypothecated tax. Neither of these distinctions is relevant to the current discussion. It is set by the government, and paid into the consolidated fund — just like income tax. It has been officially classified as a tax by the UK Office for National Statistics.
Why so anxious to avoid any mention of the 'T' word? Granted there's nothing wrong with calling it the 'licence fee' — that is its name and it is a licence — but why go criticising others for calling it a tax when it evidently is one?
It's a license fee. You can technically call it a tax but that will just confuse the discussion.
It's called a licence fee. It is a tax, in every way that matters. I don't see how this can possibly confuse the discussion unless your intent is equivocation ("Yes it would be wrong to do that with taxpayers' funds, but this is a licence fee: completely different, just like the subscription you pay to Sky or Virgin, none of your business what we spend it on etc. etc.")
Incorrect: the BBC is primarily funded by a tax on the use of television sets.
(Yes, you can avoid this tax by not owning a television, in much the same way as you can avoid income tax by not working or VAT by not shopping. It is not merely a subscription fee for watching BBC content, as it is payable regardless of which channels you watch. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but to claim that they are not funded by taxes is wrong for any reasonable definition of the word 'tax'.)
But all that's missing the point. The point is that it's *OPEN* and not under the control of any nasty for-profit corporation. And that makes it superior.
From an open source developer's perspective that's exactly right. If your proprietary so-called standard has a licence fee or other strings attached that mean they can't afford to use it then it matters not one jot how good your solution is technically — it can't and won't be used. That leaves two options: give up or use something that's open. I'm guessing from the tone of your post that you would prefer the former, but fortunately there is a good supply of users and developers who are willing to put freedom before convenience.
XSANE should never be made available. The GUI is a complete mess, looking like something that belongs on the Amiga.
Aesthetically unappealing I would agree, but in terms of actually getting the job done — for medium to high volumes of scanning — I've found that it works surprisingly well. (Better than the alternatives I've tried so far. Not tried Simple Scan yet.)
Also, it has yet to work with a single scanner or webcam I throw at it.
You do realise that XSane is just a GUI, and will work with any scanner iff you have installed an appropriate backend driver for that scanner? Switching to a different front end may improve the aesthetics, but should make no difference to which scanners work and which don't.
(That's the whole idea of SANE — that you can use any front end with any scanner — as opposed to TWAIN where every manufacturer reinvents the wheel (usually poorly) and you are stuck with the results.)
Don't worry. There will almost certainly be another opportunity. This thing just won't die.
I'm not saying that SCO won't try to appeal, but this judgment together with the result of the jury trial leaves them very little to work with. SCO asked that the question of copyright transfer be decided by jury, which it was. They agreed to specific performance being decided by the judge. They were granted so much lassitude before and during the trial that if anyone has the right to complain it is Novell.
The threshold for overturning a jury verdict is high. Now that Judge Stewart has reached essentially the same conclusion, it will be very difficult to argue that the jury acted unreasonably.
SCO may not be six feet under yet, but the lid is on the coffin and most of the nails have been hammered in. They may be able to drag out the process for a few more months, perhaps even years, but if we are looking for the point at which any serious hope for SCO was extinguished then I think we just saw it.
Last time I checked, business plans at Microsoft are designed to maximize profit for Microsoft. They might sometimes make mistakes (thus your impression that EOL for XP was "unnatural" --- your impression was that this wasn't a good business decision for MS
No, you misunderstand. I don't doubt that what happened to XP was in Microsoft's selfish interest, given their ability to force-feed the market with its replacement. The point is that it didn't die due to lack of customer interest: it was killed by a few men sitting in a boardroom. You can't do that to Open Source software, because it is directly exposed to market forces.
Last time I checked, business plans at Microsoft are designed to maximize profit for Microsoft.
Well, of course it matters the degree to which these things are true. You'd also want to see what happens when you get away from the "poster boys" like Linux.
Fair points, to which the answers are (a) it varies and (b) it varies. Being open source is no guarantee of quality, and if you pick at random then you will spend most of your time in the long tail of unfinished, unsupported code. The solution is simple: use the good and ignore the bad, just as you would with proprietary software. (Easier, in fact, because less is hidden and there is no monetary commitment.)
If you mean users fixing problems for themselves, or developers implementing suggestions from end users, then these things can and do happen. Frequently. I've experienced it, and so have others in this discussion.
If you mean that this is guaranteed to happen, of course it isn't, but who would be foolish enough to make such a claim (or gullible enough to believe it)?
Slashdot Mirror
The entire point is to make it so painful, the party will not want to do so again.
I know its not popular here, but reality is far, far different than the pro-pirate crowd constantly attempts to censor and portray here.
If that's the point then it should be a criminal trial with all of the safeguards that implies (including, in particular, the higher standard of proof).
Ultimately, however, it was realized that even documents that might initially be thought to be internal-only were often needed to be looked over by clients for review, and so eventually everybody had to install Office and use it for everything, simply so that we could compatibly communicate with the company's clients.
That would be a good reason for switching to MS Office except that:
1. MS Office can't reliably open MS Office documents with the same formatting either, and
2. It would be better to use PDF unless you actually need the document to remain editable.
I live in Eastern Europe, too. I process text for a living. That means I take in fairly massive numbers of documents from businesses every week. I've never seen a file arrive in native OpenOffice format. Not once. Of course, everybody could be using OpenOffice to export as .doc, but I don't think so.
I use OpenOffice and I wouldn't dream of sending someone an ODF file unless I was confident they would be able to open it. Since ODF support is half-baked in the current version of MS Office and non-existent in previous versions, that rules it out for most recipients. So yes, if you use OpenOffice then you probably will find yourself needing to export to another format on a regular basis.
(Of course you shouldn't be sending ODF or .doc files unless they need to remain editable: PDF is a more reliable interchange format for finished documents.)
The most credible estimate I've seen for OpenOffice usage in the Czech Republic is 22% from this survey. Together with Poland that was the highest percentage in any of the countries listed. Usage in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria was lower but still respectable.
Nevermind your neighbor... suppose I give you this box... if you push the button your internet speeds will shoot right up. But be forewarned... someone you don't know will be cut off the internet forever. Do you push the button? ;)
Yes ... yes, I would push it. Such power would put me up amongst the gods! And through the DMCA, I will have that power!!!!!
- Davros
You're assuming (incorrectly) that authentication to your OpenID provider is necessarily by means of a password. This is not a requirement: you could use SSL certificates, Kerberos, smartcards, or any other security technology that takes your fancy. You could also (for example) require that the login be authorised from a machine on your LAN.
I'm not saying that this is common practice (it isn't), but if you want this level of security then there is nothing in the OpenID protocol to prevent you from achieving it.
From an economics perspective, IP relies on legal and cultural protection. I really don't know if copying has a substantial effect on the bottom line, but certainly laws are not much use if the prevailing culture ignores them and there's no easy way to police those laws.
True, the concept of intellectual property does rely on legal protection, almost by definition. The question is: to what extent (if any) does the game industry depend on the concept of intellectual property?
I think this is a fair question to ask, because there are clearly some software publishers (Free/Open/NetBSD, for example) who don't rely on intellectual property in any way relevant to the economics of their existence. Now it may be that the game industry is sufficiently different that this conclusion does not apply, but that needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
I don't know how people can doublethink away the idea that Pirates stealing 5x the number of copies being sold legitimately for a top selling game somehow DOESN'T hurt the industry.
Doublethink is not required. Software is a nonrival good, meaning that enjoyment by one consumer does not detract from its simultaneous enjoyment by other consumers. Simple, straightforward ‘piracy’[1] does not increase the costs incurred by the publisher, nor does it directly reduce the revenue generated. It may indirectly reduce revenue, by displacing sales that would otherwise have occurred. Whether that actually happens is an open question (and a difficult one to answer when every game is different).
To be clear, I'm not saying that this would necessarily justify ‘piracy’ even if the economic effect is zero or positive, but if you want to argue against it on economic rather than moral grounds then I would like to see some evidence.
[1] I'm assuming that you mean copyright infringement as opposed to robbery on the high seas. If the latter then I concede that would have an adverse effect on the publisher.
Accurate stats aren't available but estimates put IE (all version) at between 43% and 63% of users.
That sounds about right, but don't forget that there is much more of a difference coding for IE6 versus IE7 than between (say) Firefox 3.0 and Firefox 4.0. For some purposes it makes sense to lump all versions of IE together, for others it doesn't.
So I'm not sure if I agree with your or not. That sort of share does mean you're obliged to consider Microsoft as some sort of alternative standard if you're a web developer, even if it doesn't mean that everyone else is forced to implement Microsoft's bugs.
There are two thresholds: the point at which you have to allow for Microsoft bugs, and the point at which you can rely on Microsoft bugs. We're above the first threshold still (for IE8 at least, maybe not IE6 any more), but for most purposes fell below the second threshold several years ago. That's what I meant by not dominating the market any more.
IE8 is a standard. Microsoft making it pretty much makes it so.
IE8 has perhaps 20-30% market share currently, and it is about to be superseded. Not to be sniffed at, granted, but not enough to give it much weight as a de facto standard.
Even if you lump all versions of IE together (which from a web design standpoint you can't), its days of market-dominating influence are long gone.
If you're only using a machine for a few hours a day then that's a very reasonable attitude to take, both economically and environmentally. When you're contemplating use as a server (which will presumably run 24/7) the electricity bills stack up much more quickly. The cost won't necessarily be obvious, because it will be mixed in with the rest of your usage, but it will be significant. Back of the envelope calculation: assuming 150W average that would be about 1300kWh per year, costing about GBP 180 (USD 270) where I live. Depending on your circumstances, noise and heat generation may also be factors.
OK, let me explain. The kernel module was what's known as a 'rhetorical device' intended to illustrate a point. The point was that writing a program do commit a dastardly deed, then executing it in a context where it has permission to commit that dastardly deed, is (a) not news, and (b) not even a security violation.
You're reading too much into my subtle sarcasm: I was merely suggesting that this is a highly unsurprising result. All that has been discovered here is a special case of the rule that your security is at risk if you download and execute malicious code.
... a proof-of-concept Google Chrome browser extension that steal users' login details.
That's nothing. Wait till you see my research on what's possible when you get the user to install a malicious kernel module ...
Spad said "The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds". His point being that they don't receive government-acquired funds. This is true.
That's a very fine distinction, and beside the point. It doesn't matter whether the BBC is part of the government or entirely independent from it: if it raises money though what amounts to taxation then it ought to be held accountable for how that money is spent, in much the same way as central government is accountable for income tax and VAT.
It confuses the discussion because while the licence fee is technically a tax for the purpose of collection, what the BBC (Trust) ultimately decides to do with the licence payers' money has very little to do with the government. The word "tax" has strong connotations and implies a much more direct government involvement in the output of the BBC than is the case.
I must remember that that next time we talk about the Microsoft "Windows Tax" :-)
Seriously though, I can see where you are coming from, but I think you are placing too much emphasis on the relationship between the BBC and government, and too little on the circumstances under which the licence fee becomes payable.
You can make a strong argument (provided that you vaguely believe in capitalism) that when you choose to spend your money on groceries at (say) Tesco, what they do with the proceeds is mostly none of your business. The same goes for subscriptions to a commercial TV service such as Sky or Virgin. People tend to take more interest in state-enforced monopolies such as water, and a great deal of interest in how the proceeds of income tax and VAT are spent.
Where does the BBC fit on this spectrum? If the licence fee were payable only for BBC content then economically it would be more closely analogous to a subscription fee than a tax: if you want the service then you pay for it, otherwise you don't. There would be little need for public oversight because wasteful spending would attend to itself: less money spent on good content, therefore lower subscription revenues.
With the current model you pay for the right to operate a television set. It is true that you consequently gain access to BBC content, but that isn't actually what you are paying for when you pay the fee. Therefore, the BBC has no direct commercial incentive to avoid waste and produce good output.
Of course the BBC wouldn't last long if they paid no regard to their audience: the government would quickly be forced to reduce or abolish the licence fee in order to satisfy public opinion. However the feedback mechanism here is through the ballot box, not the hidden hand of the market. That's one very good reason why the licence fee is properly described as a tax, and why the distinction matters to this discussion.
In terms of difficulty of avoidance the licence fee is somewhere in the middle of the range: easier than income tax or VAT, true, but more difficult than Stamp Duty Reserve Tax, and much more difficult than the tax on playing cards we once had. This isn't really relevant though: just because you can avoid an activity doesn't prevent a tax on that activity being a tax.
As I said before I take no position on whether the current method of funding is a good thing or a bad thing. However in terms of accountability for spending I would consider it to be public money, and would be making comparisons with government rather than commercial TV services.
Because when people say "tax payer pounds" it implies pounds acquired by the government via income tax (or other means).
Sigh. The only significant differences are that the BBC is responsible for administering its collection, and that (unusually for the UK) it is a hypothecated tax. Neither of these distinctions is relevant to the current discussion. It is set by the government, and paid into the consolidated fund — just like income tax. It has been officially classified as a tax by the UK Office for National Statistics.
Why so anxious to avoid any mention of the 'T' word? Granted there's nothing wrong with calling it the 'licence fee' — that is its name and it is a licence — but why go criticising others for calling it a tax when it evidently is one?
It's a license fee. You can technically call it a tax but that will just confuse the discussion.
It's called a licence fee. It is a tax, in every way that matters. I don't see how this can possibly confuse the discussion unless your intent is equivocation ("Yes it would be wrong to do that with taxpayers' funds, but this is a licence fee: completely different, just like the subscription you pay to Sky or Virgin, none of your business what we spend it on etc. etc.")
a) The BBC doesn't receive taxpayer pounds
Incorrect: the BBC is primarily funded by a tax on the use of television sets.
(Yes, you can avoid this tax by not owning a television, in much the same way as you can avoid income tax by not working or VAT by not shopping. It is not merely a subscription fee for watching BBC content, as it is payable regardless of which channels you watch. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but to claim that they are not funded by taxes is wrong for any reasonable definition of the word 'tax'.)
From an open source developer's perspective that's exactly right. If your proprietary so-called standard has a licence fee or other strings attached that mean they can't afford to use it then it matters not one jot how good your solution is technically — it can't and won't be used. That leaves two options: give up or use something that's open. I'm guessing from the tone of your post that you would prefer the former, but fortunately there is a good supply of users and developers who are willing to put freedom before convenience.
XSANE should never be made available. The GUI is a complete mess, looking like something that belongs on the Amiga.
Aesthetically unappealing I would agree, but in terms of actually getting the job done — for medium to high volumes of scanning — I've found that it works surprisingly well. (Better than the alternatives I've tried so far. Not tried Simple Scan yet.)
Also, it has yet to work with a single scanner or webcam I throw at it.
You do realise that XSane is just a GUI, and will work with any scanner iff you have installed an appropriate backend driver for that scanner? Switching to a different front end may improve the aesthetics, but should make no difference to which scanners work and which don't.
(That's the whole idea of SANE — that you can use any front end with any scanner — as opposed to TWAIN where every manufacturer reinvents the wheel (usually poorly) and you are stuck with the results.)
Don't worry. There will almost certainly be another opportunity. This thing just won't die.
I'm not saying that SCO won't try to appeal, but this judgment together with the result of the jury trial leaves them very little to work with. SCO asked that the question of copyright transfer be decided by jury, which it was. They agreed to specific performance being decided by the judge. They were granted so much lassitude before and during the trial that if anyone has the right to complain it is Novell.
The threshold for overturning a jury verdict is high. Now that Judge Stewart has reached essentially the same conclusion, it will be very difficult to argue that the jury acted unreasonably.
SCO may not be six feet under yet, but the lid is on the coffin and most of the nails have been hammered in. They may be able to drag out the process for a few more months, perhaps even years, but if we are looking for the point at which any serious hope for SCO was extinguished then I think we just saw it.
can you imagine how much of the earth's surface you'd have to nuke to get rid of all the XP install CDs?
A noble objective to be sure, but I for one believe that GNU/Linux can and should achieve world domination peacefully.
No, you misunderstand. I don't doubt that what happened to XP was in Microsoft's selfish interest, given their ability to force-feed the market with its replacement. The point is that it didn't die due to lack of customer interest: it was killed by a few men sitting in a boardroom. You can't do that to Open Source software, because it is directly exposed to market forces.
Yes, that's the problem :-)
Fair points, to which the answers are (a) it varies and (b) it varies. Being open source is no guarantee of quality, and if you pick at random then you will spend most of your time in the long tail of unfinished, unsupported code. The solution is simple: use the good and ignore the bad, just as you would with proprietary software. (Easier, in fact, because less is hidden and there is no monetary commitment.)
Who has been claiming what exactly for a decade?
If you mean users fixing problems for themselves, or developers implementing suggestions from end users, then these things can and do happen. Frequently. I've experienced it, and so have others in this discussion.
If you mean that this is guaranteed to happen, of course it isn't, but who would be foolish enough to make such a claim (or gullible enough to believe it)?