Hold on now. What about the guy (or gal) who is quiting SCO out of protest for their anti-open source stance? I think throwing a resume out just because it lists SCO on it is indeed sending the wrong message.
Sometimes going with a closed source vendor can work out great--the last company I worked for bought a proprietary library. We found that their WinNT port was very buggy, so we sent two developers down to their labs and they worked through the source code until they had a fix. Then the vendor gave us a discount because we helped them out.
Othertimes, it doesn't work out so well. Back in 1997 I worked for a company which used a third party, closed source library to decode maps. The vendor stopped supporting the libraries (in fact, I think they went out of business), and we couldn't port our software from Win16 to Win32. It was a real road block. Had we used an open source library, we could have ported the code ourselves.
Presently, I'm working for a company which is using an open source component. We have spent a lot of time debugging the component, since the author no longer supports it. I'm sure we have spent way more than we would have if we had bought a closed source component, but our OS component happens to behave in a way we need and has functionality we couldn't find in other off-the-shelf products.
The long and short of it? Going open source offers flexibility but also may cost you more in development time. The nice thing, though, is that you have access to the code and you can make changes and make ports if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
I got the flash animation, too (I'm running Konqueror 3.x). I tried hitting "reload" and it loaded the article. Hope that helps.
Naw, his second's name is Baldrick.
Hold on now. What about the guy (or gal) who is quiting SCO out of protest for their anti-open source stance? I think throwing a resume out just because it lists SCO on it is indeed sending the wrong message.
Well said Bill!
Sometimes going with a closed source vendor can work out great--the last company I worked for bought a proprietary library. We found that their WinNT port was very buggy, so we sent two developers down to their labs and they worked through the source code until they had a fix. Then the vendor gave us a discount because we helped them out.
Othertimes, it doesn't work out so well. Back in 1997 I worked for a company which used a third party, closed source library to decode maps. The vendor stopped supporting the libraries (in fact, I think they went out of business), and we couldn't port our software from Win16 to Win32. It was a real road block. Had we used an open source library, we could have ported the code ourselves.
Presently, I'm working for a company which is using an open source component. We have spent a lot of time debugging the component, since the author no longer supports it. I'm sure we have spent way more than we would have if we had bought a closed source component, but our OS component happens to behave in a way we need and has functionality we couldn't find in other off-the-shelf products.
The long and short of it? Going open source offers flexibility but also may cost you more in development time. The nice thing, though, is that you have access to the code and you can make changes and make ports if necessary.
Okay, okay. The guys at MGM/UA aren't bastards and I publically apologize for using such a foul word and would like to take back what I said.
Or maybe I should have said "Fat Bastards..."! Hee hee...
God that's funny! But those bastards at MGM/UA et all would do doubt sue over that one as well.
Why not use that instead of Windows Media? Because M$ always gets their way.