I totally agree with you - if you download it and use it for free - its your problem. But if you buy it from someone they should take some responsibility for it.
I am talking just about someone owning responsibility for all these things that people are starting to use now. A washer-dryer is a different domain - if it works - it works - otherwise take it back and get it replaced or get it fixed. But does it work that way if you have a bug in the s/w that you bought?
Let's go back to the issue at hand warranty between open-source and closed-source software. As far a user who buys a Linux CD off the shelf at Best Buy or a Windows CD - they don't see any difference. If you say if there is a problem in a Linux App its your problem and if there is a prob in Windows App it is a MS prob - sure it makes perfect sense for me, but can you tell that to a mainstream user and expect OpenSource to become the future choice of the generation.
It seems that the general attitude of the OpenSource community is - we want all the IPO money that OpenSource is generating - but we don't like any of these newbies using Linux or asking us questions - because Linux is for smart people and if you are not smart enough to use it as it is supposed to be used - its your problem. This attitude can be bad for gaining more mainstream users.
Exactly my point - If the OpenSource community thinks that it just for the select group of UNIX programmers - then the mainstream users who are starting to use all these OpenSource programs should be made aware of what you exactly think of them - and what they are getting for the money they are paying. (They don't realize it when they buy it exactly the same way they buy any other s/w).
those f*cking (l)users -who were stupid enough to pay money to use our product attitude.
After reading couple of reply's I thought that the attitude is not too prevalent - but since continuing to read further posts show that none of us here believe / think that anyone should be responsible for a problem in OpenSource software because it is written for free and distributed for a very low cost. Instead of making a blanket staement that says whatever happens it is your fault - maybe it should say blame it on the person whom you paid your hard - earned money to.
As I pointed out elsewhere - this argument makes perfect sense if we decide that only people who know how to debug the kernel should be using free software - who I don't think are too many.
So if any of this opensource "stuff" should be mainstream, someone should take some responsibility for it. It does not have to be the developers who write it for free or distribution sites that store it in ther machines. If a person wants to get something for free - they very well know that they are responsible for what they do. But if someone pays some good money for it - they better get something that works.
I am pretty sure that most of the OpenSource s/w have much less bugs than the closed source ones - but nevertheless - before I run gcc - no one should expect me to go through the gcc source code and make sure that if I accidently pass a -P option it will re-partition my hard-drive.
As far as people who are buying a RH CD for $50 with all the OpenSource s/w are concerned only difference between Windows and Linux is Linux is cheaper by $40 and it is supposed to be a much better OS than Windows. But if we start telling them - yes we think the s/w you have there is perfect - but if your computer just happens to blow up because of one of those 1000 packages that got installed - its not our problem - its your problem because you did not go through the source code of the whole OS and all the 1000 OpenSource s/w that was in it to make sure that your machine won't blow up - I am not sure how many of those people who are trying to use Linux will continue to use it.
If a home user who pays $50 bucks feels this way what about companies that are dishing out millions of bucks - should we tell them OpenSource community thinks that along with those millions they should just put more to make sure all the things will work as expected.
Yes - it would make perfect sense - if we assume that all the users of Linux are going to be kernel hackers or hobby-ists who spent half their time exploring the OpenSource code for the OS and all the applications that they run. But if the users were just this small group RHAT shares would be selling for less than pennies. But once when this starts to be a mainstream application / s/w / OS - can we expect each company who decides to use Linux (and are paying big bucks to companies like RedHat - to make sure that they get something that really works - better than what they were using before) to go into the source code and make sure that it does not have any bugs.
So someone should start taking some responsibilty. If someone wants to make some easy money out of this OpenSource they better understand that along with just putting everything on a CD and charging low distribution costs of 40/50 bucks they better make sure that they work properly too.
Here's what I think - If I paid someone for something - I expect it to work - otherwise its their problem - whether they coded it or just packaged it.
As you mentioned Redhat charges for packaging. Since they are charging for it - its their responsibilty to make sure that what they put in their distro works before they package it.
As someone mentioned previously here the incentive for RedHat is to package it in such a way that for the product not to work - so that they can start charging for support to make the product work.
On the other hand I downloaded RH 6.1 - tried to install it - the install exceptioned out because whoever coded the install decided that after doing partitioning they just continue without rebooting. (Maybe its what RH wants - if the default config does not work - buy support and we will fix it for ya). If I had paid for that I would have been terribily upset - but since it was free download I downloaded Linux-Mandrake - it recognized the partition prob - made me reboot the system and the install worked.
So my point is - if you pay for something - it better be something that works - or whoever is making money off it should be in serious trouble - whether it is Microsoft's proprietery s/w or RedHat's Open Source software.
Yeah - I know its bit harsh - blaming redhat for a bug in gcc because they packaged it - but rewards come only at a certain risk - and the money that they expect to make out of selling open source be better used to make sure that open source that they are selling really works.
And it may not even fit into the current paradigm of Open Source developemnt - but world is changing and someone should be their to accept responsibility for a bug/problem - because it is no longer a hobby-ist's OS but when businesses get into it they expect someone to take responsibilty for what they are paying big bucks for.
R
Blasphemy - The ultimate OS
on
V2OS under GPL
·
· Score: 1
At the risk of sounding really blasphemous and expecting to be moderated down by these trolls who act as moderators here - let me make this comment - A lot of OS 's thought that they are the ultimate - From MVS, UNIX, DOS, WINDOWS. Let's not fall into the same trap for Linux and try to talk out a new OS just because it is written in ASM or it may even become a better alternative for Linux (Heaven forbid). Try it out - if you like it post something positive - if you hate it post its drawbacks. Lets keep this forum intellectually simulating.
I try to read this forum at threshold 3 - but with these trollong ass*oles moderating I have to read at -1 just to get an idea about where the discussion about the topic is really going.
From the other commets I see I am not the only one with this opinion. But none the less, guys keep up the good work (not the moderators - but the maintainers).
And BTW the last straw for Andover.net was sending java advts. in every page (not every but many) - which even over my cable modem was taking too long to load.
With couple more stories like these, I am out of Slashdot. Put advts. as advts. and stories as stories. Once you start mixing them - a site starts losing its charm.
Slashdot Mirror
I am talking just about someone owning responsibility for all these things that people are starting to use now. A washer-dryer is a different domain - if it works - it works - otherwise take it back and get it replaced or get it fixed. But does it work that way if you have a bug in the s/w that you bought?
Let's go back to the issue at hand warranty between open-source and closed-source software. As far a user who buys a Linux CD off the shelf at Best Buy or a Windows CD - they don't see any difference. If you say if there is a problem in a Linux App its your problem and if there is a prob in Windows App it is a MS prob - sure it makes perfect sense for me, but can you tell that to a mainstream user and expect OpenSource to become the future choice of the generation.
It seems that the general attitude of the OpenSource community is - we want all the IPO money that OpenSource is generating - but we don't like any of these newbies using Linux or asking us questions - because Linux is for smart people and if you are not smart enough to use it as it is supposed to be used - its your problem. This attitude can be bad for gaining more mainstream users.
Exactly my point - If the OpenSource community thinks that it just for the select group of UNIX programmers - then the mainstream users who are starting to use all these OpenSource programs should be made aware of what you exactly think of them - and what they are getting for the money they are paying. (They don't realize it when they buy it exactly the same way they buy any other s/w).
After reading couple of reply's I thought that the attitude is not too prevalent - but since continuing to read further posts show that none of us here believe / think that anyone should be responsible for a problem in OpenSource software because it is written for free and distributed for a very low cost. Instead of making a blanket staement that says whatever happens it is your fault - maybe it should say blame it on the person whom you paid your hard - earned money to.
As I pointed out elsewhere - this argument makes perfect sense if we decide that only people who know how to debug the kernel should be using free software - who I don't think are too many.
So if any of this opensource "stuff" should be mainstream, someone should take some responsibility for it. It does not have to be the developers who write it for free or distribution sites that store it in ther machines. If a person wants to get something for free - they very well know that they are responsible for what they do. But if someone pays some good money for it - they better get something that works.
I am pretty sure that most of the OpenSource s/w have much less bugs than the closed source ones - but nevertheless - before I run gcc - no one should expect me to go through the gcc source code and make sure that if I accidently pass a -P option it will re-partition my hard-drive.
As far as people who are buying a RH CD for $50 with all the OpenSource s/w are concerned only difference between Windows and Linux is Linux is cheaper by $40 and it is supposed to be a much better OS than Windows. But if we start telling them - yes we think the s/w you have there is perfect - but if your computer just happens to blow up because of one of those 1000 packages that got installed - its not our problem - its your problem because you did not go through the source code of the whole OS and all the 1000 OpenSource s/w that was in it to make sure that your machine won't blow up - I am not sure how many of those people who are trying to use Linux will continue to use it.
If a home user who pays $50 bucks feels this way what about companies that are dishing out millions of bucks - should we tell them OpenSource community thinks that along with those millions they should just put more to make sure all the things will work as expected.
I may very well be wrong - but just my 2 cents.
So someone should start taking some responsibilty. If someone wants to make some easy money out of this OpenSource they better understand that along with just putting everything on a CD and charging low distribution costs of 40/50 bucks they better make sure that they work properly too.
As you mentioned Redhat charges for packaging. Since they are charging for it - its their responsibilty to make sure that what they put in their distro works before they package it.
As someone mentioned previously here the incentive for RedHat is to package it in such a way that for the product not to work - so that they can start charging for support to make the product work.
On the other hand I downloaded RH 6.1 - tried to install it - the install exceptioned out because whoever coded the install decided that after doing partitioning they just continue without rebooting. (Maybe its what RH wants - if the default config does not work - buy support and we will fix it for ya).
If I had paid for that I would have been terribily upset - but since it was free download I downloaded Linux-Mandrake - it recognized the partition prob - made me reboot the system and the install worked.
So my point is - if you pay for something - it better be something that works - or whoever is making money off it should be in serious trouble - whether it is Microsoft's proprietery s/w or RedHat's Open Source software.
Yeah - I know its bit harsh - blaming redhat for a bug in gcc because they packaged it - but rewards come only at a certain risk - and the money that they expect to make out of selling open source be better used to make sure that open source that they are selling really works.
And it may not even fit into the current paradigm of Open Source developemnt - but world is changing and someone should be their to accept responsibility for a bug/problem - because it is no longer a hobby-ist's OS but when businesses get into it they expect someone to take responsibilty for what they are paying big bucks for.
R
At the risk of sounding really blasphemous and expecting to be moderated down by these trolls who act as moderators here - let me make this comment - A lot of OS 's thought that they are the ultimate - From MVS, UNIX, DOS, WINDOWS. Let's not fall into the same trap for Linux and try to talk out a new OS just because it is written in ASM or it may even become a better alternative for Linux (Heaven forbid). Try it out - if you like it post something positive - if you hate it post its drawbacks. Lets keep this forum intellectually simulating.
I try to read this forum at threshold 3 - but with these trollong ass*oles moderating I have to read at -1 just to get an idea about where the discussion about the topic is really going.
From the other commets I see I am not the only one with this opinion. But none the less, guys keep up the good work (not the moderators - but the maintainers).
I dont have a problem with your off-topic comment - but I do with those clueless moderators who moderate up off-topic comments as interesting. R
Off Topic and Interesting - Is the difference based off who makes the comment? What does how much a day-trader will lose have to do with LinuxOne IPO?
And BTW the last straw for Andover.net was sending java advts. in every page (not every but many) - which even over my cable modem was taking too long to load.
With couple more stories like these, I am out of Slashdot. Put advts. as advts. and stories as stories. Once you start mixing them - a site starts losing its charm.