Open source versus closed source is not an indication of a trust in a persons professional capacity or ethics. To try to say that this man's mental state is any way indicative of all mental states of open source developers is just offensive and stupid.
No, it's not stupid. The same logic is applied to closed source developers all the time. If half the developers would be bad apples, it would be a real problem and it would be looked at. That's not the case, of course, but Reiser was in quite high position. No one in closed source world within same position would work on code if he had mental problems. The company would had either taken care of him or let him go way before that.
As for trust being placed in a high level developer of any software platform, it is actually a benefit when the source is available. You see, it then becomes inherently possible, to actually check the code and verify it independently. When it is closed source, trust is all the more important, because their word is all you are ever going to get.
In comparison, closed source world has actual code verification and QA. There are tons of PRICY applications made for this. Large amount of people work just to test code and apps. Closed source code is usually checked really closely and actually tested with applications made for that. This part is often overlooked by open source developers either because they can't afford it or they simply don't care.
The very fact you mention Microsoft products being chosen over random open source products takes away any claim to an impartial position. Where are the plethora of closed source software vendors in that statement?
I mention Microsoft because they are 99% of the time chosen instead of open source competitors. Yes, that really is the case in real world.
How is it pathetic? It's just opinion about the mental state of FOSS developers, as illustrated by recent real world case of highly trusted person. It's akin to a CTO choosing Microsoft products instead of random open source products. Sure, there are bad people inside companies too, but the code is more looked at and there are real life recursions.
Open source is just released to the wild and can do anything. You can of course modify it, but who even checks the code they run? They just trust it.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source versus closed source is not an indication of a trust in a persons professional capacity or ethics. To try to say that this man's mental state is any way indicative of all mental states of open source developers is just offensive and stupid.
No, it's not stupid. The same logic is applied to closed source developers all the time. If half the developers would be bad apples, it would be a real problem and it would be looked at. That's not the case, of course, but Reiser was in quite high position. No one in closed source world within same position would work on code if he had mental problems. The company would had either taken care of him or let him go way before that.
As for trust being placed in a high level developer of any software platform, it is actually a benefit when the source is available. You see, it then becomes inherently possible, to actually check the code and verify it independently. When it is closed source, trust is all the more important, because their word is all you are ever going to get.
In comparison, closed source world has actual code verification and QA. There are tons of PRICY applications made for this. Large amount of people work just to test code and apps. Closed source code is usually checked really closely and actually tested with applications made for that. This part is often overlooked by open source developers either because they can't afford it or they simply don't care.
The very fact you mention Microsoft products being chosen over random open source products takes away any claim to an impartial position. Where are the plethora of closed source software vendors in that statement?
I mention Microsoft because they are 99% of the time chosen instead of open source competitors. Yes, that really is the case in real world.
How is it pathetic? It's just opinion about the mental state of FOSS developers, as illustrated by recent real world case of highly trusted person. It's akin to a CTO choosing Microsoft products instead of random open source products. Sure, there are bad people inside companies too, but the code is more looked at and there are real life recursions.
Open source is just released to the wild and can do anything. You can of course modify it, but who even checks the code they run? They just trust it.