I think even an idiot wont make such statement.
If its a closed source then how do you know it is a good one? It is closed, noone can see it, except you. You just assume it is good oooo mighty closed source progremmer - a recipe for failure.
It is just the opposite - if it is an open source then it is a good one, if it is not then who knows how many bugs, spyware, countless layers of DRM it contains. I personaly am scared to use closed source systems.
I just can't understand why they don't use the Microsoft naming practices. Like dxmasf, msstdfmt or wzcdlg for example. How explanatory and easy to use are these names. Instead of ls they could use msslzscpq for easiness and confort of developers and users.
>... What exactly does he want?
If he knew what exactly he wanted he would never call for limiting access. This is the problem of amareurs in professional fields in general.
"...Steve Vamos, Microsoft Australia's managing director, come with no knowledge of what Firefox has to offer as he admits not even installing or using Firefox."
You can always spot the "real" IT professional from light miles away. Lol
It is not just about security. The problem is that Open Source does not generate ideas, it only replicates ideas. Even the biggest fruit of Open Source - Linux is nothing more than a replication of an existing system. I see Open Source as a powerful but dangerous medicine. If it is applied carefully and under control it could boost productivity and the quality of the products, it could be a very good competitor and wipe out all scam attempts in the area. But increase the dose and you kill the patient. And this is what we start to see now - an overdosed IT patient that shows all undesirable simptoms of this.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a problem. Windows is simply getting better and better...
If you patent patenting stuff then what is stopping me to patent patenting patenting stuff?
This looks more and more as the Absurdland lol...
I think even an idiot wont make such statement. If its a closed source then how do you know it is a good one? It is closed, noone can see it, except you. You just assume it is good oooo mighty closed source progremmer - a recipe for failure. It is just the opposite - if it is an open source then it is a good one, if it is not then who knows how many bugs, spyware, countless layers of DRM it contains. I personaly am scared to use closed source systems.
I just can't understand why they don't use the Microsoft naming practices. Like dxmasf, msstdfmt or wzcdlg for example. How explanatory and easy to use are these names. Instead of ls they could use msslzscpq for easiness and confort of developers and users.
> ... What exactly does he want?
If he knew what exactly he wanted he would never call for limiting access. This is the problem of amareurs in professional fields in general.
"...Steve Vamos, Microsoft Australia's managing director, come with no knowledge of what Firefox has to offer as he admits not even installing or using Firefox." You can always spot the "real" IT professional from light miles away. Lol
It is not just about security. The problem is that Open Source does not generate ideas, it only replicates ideas. Even the biggest fruit of Open Source - Linux is nothing more than a replication of an existing system.
I see Open Source as a powerful but dangerous medicine. If it is applied carefully and under control it could boost productivity and the quality of the products, it could be a very good competitor and wipe out all scam attempts in the area. But increase the dose and you kill the patient.
And this is what we start to see now - an overdosed IT patient that shows all undesirable simptoms of this.