I am real. It may not happen often, but even Open Source developments do split occasionally, or goes into directions not all users agree with. And if such a thing happens, it doesn't make a tad of a difference for the mere users of the software if the sources are available or not.
Open Source is better than closed source in general. But that doesn't mean that is true for every single individual case, a fact that of OS warriors conveniently overlook.
To put it bluntly: there are people, even nerds, out there, for whom Linux does not do what they want, never will do what they want, and therefore for whom the openness of Linux is worth zilch. For them, Linux might as well be a proprietary commercial product; and badmouthing their OS of choice just because it's not Open Source borders on hypocracy.
Ok, let's imagine IBM had made OS/2 Open Source. Would the users have continued the development? For how long? Would they implement those bugfixes and features you need? What if development splits, but both version have features you'd like to have?
You can be abandoned by Open Source software as well as by closed software - the reasons would be different, the result would be the same. Open Source is a good thing, but neither miracle cure nor an ends in itself, and it annoys me when people treat it as such.
With BeOS, just as with any other proprietary, closed-source OS, you are at the mercy of one company for bug fixes, feature additions, support, etc. With Open Source, one company can decide to discontinue its distribution, but the software lives on, as long as someone wants to use and/or improve it.
I am a die-hard programmer - I program for a living and in my spare-time - but when it comes to the OS, it doesn't make much of a difference if the OS I use is open source or close source. In either case I am at the mercy of the OS maintainers.
Oh, in theory I could delve into the OS sources and submit my patches and ideas (and I admire people who do), but in practice (1) that would take precious time I'd rather spend on my on programming, and (2) there is no guarantee that my patches and ideas would be accepted.
Your mileage will surely vary, but please explain to me again why it is important for me to use an open-source OS.
It also bothers me that BeOS finds it necessary to borrow most of its Apps and development tools from the OSS community. If you are going to benefit from the OSS community efforts, than you should give back to that community.
And if Be wouldn't use the OSS development tools, you would bash them as well for re-inventing even more wheels and using substandard tools (and you'd even be correct).
I am always astonished that 'the community' has no appreciation for the fact that a commercial company demonstrates enough trust into the OSS tools to use them for their development. How many other commercial companies can you name which do the same in public? And all bugs found and fixed in these tools by Be engineers are reported back to the maintainers, so the community does profit here.
I too would prefer to have the source of BeOS (for example too see where I could improve the memory allocator), but the blind OSS fanatism some people show here is really over the top.
Oh well, nobody's going to read this anyway, not with all the new news.
> Hey, maybe it's just my not ever having used > Windows, but I _don't_ think the windows > desktop is workable and useful.
Using Windows would not change your opinion - trust me on that. And I'd also add 'aesthetically pleasing' to the list of attributes the Windows desktop does not possess.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Source is better than closed source in general. But that doesn't mean that is true for every single individual case, a fact that of OS warriors conveniently overlook.
To put it bluntly: there are people, even nerds, out there, for whom Linux does not do what they want, never will do what they want, and therefore for whom the openness of Linux is worth zilch. For them, Linux might as well be a proprietary commercial product; and badmouthing their OS of choice just because it's not Open Source borders on hypocracy.
You can be abandoned by Open Source software as well as by closed software - the reasons would be different, the result would be the same. Open Source is a good thing, but neither miracle cure nor an ends in itself, and it annoys me when people treat it as such.
Oh, in theory I could delve into the OS sources and submit my patches and ideas (and I admire people who do), but in practice (1) that would take precious time I'd rather spend on my on programming, and (2) there is no guarantee that my patches and ideas would be accepted.
Your mileage will surely vary, but please explain to me again why it is important for me to use an open-source OS.
I am always astonished that 'the community' has no appreciation for the fact that a commercial company demonstrates enough trust into the OSS tools to use them for their development. How many other commercial companies can you name which do the same in public? And all bugs found and fixed in these tools by Be engineers are reported back to the maintainers, so the community does profit here.
I too would prefer to have the source of BeOS (for example too see where I could improve the memory allocator), but the blind OSS fanatism some people show here is really over the top.
Oh well, nobody's going to read this anyway, not with all the new news.
> Hey, maybe it's just my not ever having used
> Windows, but I _don't_ think the windows
> desktop is workable and useful.
Using Windows would not change your opinion -
trust me on that. And I'd also add 'aesthetically
pleasing' to the list of attributes the Windows
desktop does not possess.