I'm not your strawman, so put down the torch. I don't think this is the year of the Linux desktop, and have been quite explicit in saying that I think that OSS is very good at some things, while closed source models seem to do better at others.
Which was totally irrelevant to my comments meant for the OP.
I think that many Linux desktop applications are at or approaching the point of competitiveness with their closed-source brethren, but I also think that its going to be a long time before some parts of the industry come under contention.
Do you run Linux on your desktop? I've found this to be patently false.
My initial question was simply whether OSS will wind up dominating arenas with disjoint user and developer bases the way that it does where those two groups are closely aligned, and you ask when we'll know the answer to that. My general feeling is that we already know that it is possible for projects like Firefox to contest some segments of the market, but that we probably won't see just one model in very many parts of the industry unless an application that simply obliterates its competition winds up emerging, and I don't think its possible to predict whether such a rogue entity would be open or closed. You ask what my standards for making that judgment would be, and if you're driving at the point that its a subjective estimation, you're right.
Part of my point is that the FF team has a big player backing them with money. Should that company no longer fund the primary developers, would FF survive? I don't really think so. GNUCash is a more appropriate model; the developers think I want all the gory details of double entry accounting, which I don't. Things like MS Money or Quicken hide those details for me. GNUCash also was lacking in any reporting of any kind. They even admit it: "I'd guess that GnuCash's biggest problem is that programmers don't use the software." These are the majority of OSS projects.
You ask what my standards for making that judgment would be, and if you're driving at the point that its a subjective estimation, you're right. Market position is very difficult to correctly ascertain, and I don't particularly think its the kind of thing either of us really wants to spend our lives doing. As a result, I hope you'll forgive me when I borrow the words of Anthony Comstock and give you the deeply unsatisfying answer that "I'll know it when I see it".
Well, the problem is that without objective qualifications we can't really ever evaluate if your statement is true.
As far as it not having been settled, well, we're sitting here arguing about it.
Well, I imagine we could forever too, since we don't have anything objective to go on.
Sure, I'm writing this from a Linux machine running Firefox, but from your earlier statements I envision you doing the same from a Windows box and IE. With any luck, competition will help to improve the quality of all the contenders.
Windows and FF actually, although I am using IE about the same as FF now that IE7 is out.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear more about your experience with open source. What projects did you think were most or least competitive?
It was harder to use. GNUcash wasn't cutting it (no reports), I still had random crashes. The documentation is non-existent in most cases, and managing my network is easier with Windows Server 2003 (SBS). And of course RPM hell. I felt like I was spending more time fighting to get Linux to do what I want than actually having it do what I wanted. And I put the time in too; I had run a linux server for 10 years and on the desktop for three. It was honestly more frustrating than Windows.
One link its "plenty of evidence?" Maybe to you. I sit here typing this using Vista Ultimate, and I actually like the simplicity if the shutdown menu. So while at the bottom it looked like things didn't work, it seems it did come together at the end.
Not that the link describes an ideal situation either, but the author seems to have been relegated to a team that they didn't want working on anything else. Seriously, a whole team for the shutdown menu? He even admits most of the code to shutdown the computer was going to be written by others. Maybe his team was just incompetent?
You have your speculation, I have mine. Neither of us were there, and unlike Joel, I'll not run off an make a big deal about one blog post.
If you don't notice a significant flaw in the security or driver model during 5+ years of development and testing then yes, you are incompetent. At the very least your testing is incompetent.
Right, because the driver model was being worked on every day for five years. I'm sure it wasn't worked on, finished and had some initial testing then left. Certainly, it wasn't testing again toward the end, when the flaw was then uncovered.
Your statement is so asinine I can only assume you've never worked on a large piece of software before.
We're not talking about a broken link on a web site. We're talking about an OS that goes on hundreds of millions of computers. Make a few mistakes in the some of the details, but don't fsck up the model.
Again, I can only assume you've never worked on anything really large and complex. If you had, you'd realize that yes, smart people can overlook something important because no one thought of that one particular angle which the model breaks down.
I also suspect that if MS did nothing and a vulnerability was discovered you'd be bitching how they did nothing as well. But please, when you really design something large and complex and you get it right every single time, let us know. But be prepared to let us know who the experts are that reviewed your code so we know its true and not just your overinflated ego.
Sorry, where did I say it wasn't their fault? I'm merely stating the OP is hold MS to a standard that no one could attain and still release a reasonably priced OS. As far as rushing goes, its entirely possible that is the fault of the manager that jumped ship to google. If you have an offer on the table with expiration dates, are you going to miss it so you can get that one last project out the door? I think not.
Sorry, I disagree. The design had a flaw, but that doesn't mean the design overall is bad, nor does it indicate "horrible project management." People make mistakes, people miss things. Sorry, it happens, but to act like YOU would never have it happen to you is pretty silly. No one is perfect.
Sorry, its not my fault you didn't comprehend it. Especially since you jumped in to my reply to another poster. I have been rational this whole time, until you started with the insults.
For about eight years now I've been hearing "this is the year of linux on the desktop." It hasn't happened. I even gave up on it, and found that commercial software DOES meet my needs better than the OSS camp. I suspect there are many out there in a similar spot. I can't imagine the typical home user though, if it wasn't sutiable for me.
But please, tell me how we will know when the question is settled? What is your criteria? What makes you think it hasn't already been settled?
Frankly, you aren't illustrating a superb grasp of the realities of either open or closed source development, or the businesses that survive on those models. I will presume that my lack of eloquence is the reason that you failed to grasp the first point, because it is very simple: the OSS model is good at some things. The closed source model is good at others. One of the places where open source has demonstrated the most significant advantages over closed source is where the developer and user base ARE closely aligned. That is all.
Frankly, you're a pompus ass. Stop with your thinly veiled insults. No one said that for a small number of cases OSS can work better. That's not the point of the thread, its whether or not the it ALWAYS does so, and whether or not closed source can match it in those few cases.
As for your second point, it's just plain illogical. A company exists therefore its customers must be happy with its products- obviously and flatly untrue, and, if I may, any level of experience in the software industry would enlighten you to that fact.
If you had any experience at all in the business world, you'd see that companies that do not deliver what their customers want go out of business, except monopolies. But please, point out ten or so software companies where none of the customers are happy with the product yet buy it anyway.
Furthermore, your point that developers are akin to production line workers (which is certainly not the case in all but the largest software shops) ignores the reality that it takes experience at more than one level of your organization to make it effective. It seems significant to me that the portions of the software industry that have the highest levels of bottom-to-top experience are the ones that have the highest customer satisfaction.
Well, according to you, small closed source software companies don't exist because they aren't giving their customers what they want. For some reason, you seem to think its not possible for a closed souce shop to deliver customer satisfaction. Or are you changing your mind here?
As for your last statement, you are partially correct, though I hope you'll forgive my ignorance when I say that I don't see what that has to do with the point you quoted. Many top developers are paid by someone to write code for OSS projects, but you are incorrect when you presume that the controller of the code is paying their salaries.
While Linus may enjoy being paid to do pretty much whatever he wants for Linux, most OSS developers (those paid to work on OSS) aren't in this boat. OSS developers that moonlight are paid largely by closed source shops.
As for your last statement, you are partially correct, though I hope you'll forgive my ignorance when I say that I don't see what that has to do with the point you quoted. Many top developers are paid by someone to write code for OSS projects, but you are incorrect when you presume that the controller of the code is paying their salaries.
You point to the brightest light as your example. However, most OSS projects never achive the level of where someone is paid to work on them. And if you think that RedHat isn't directing the developers it has, you're sadly mistaken.
As to your point, sorry that you seem to be verrying off to some other direction. My point was that for most software, the OSS model will fail. The fact that it can work (and not demonstratably better than the closed source model) is pretty irrelevent.
The other poster was claiming that twice-a-week mail delivery (which wasn't my idea, but it makes sense) was impractical. Its not. It saves energy, resources, etc. The only thing stopping it is inertia and the postal employee's union.
Yes, but some people care about getting things immedately. It's nothing to do with inertia, I simply want things to arrive as quickly as possible.
A second claim was that not everyone who sends him money can do the "direct deposit" thing - you no longer need direct deposit to send money via email. So then it became "not everyone has the internet / email", then "not everyone has a bank account." Well, if they don't have a bank account, how are they writing checks? If you don't have a bank account, how are you cashing them? A lot of banks won't cash checks made out to 3rd parties any more because of fraud.
I strongly suspect the "bank" is PayPal. I wouldn't trust that company with $0.10 of my money. Oh, you also realize you don't need a bank account to RECIEVE checks, right? You can always cash the check at the bank on which it is drawn, and there are plenty of check cashing businesses around. Just because YOU don't think it's possible doesn't mean it can't be done.
In other words, its just a series of reasons to maintain the status quo in the face of changing conditions, rather than trying to allocate limted resources in a more efficient manner. The original proposal (twice-a-week mail delivery) would cut energy waste by the post office. It would also reduce vehicle wear and maintenance costs, as there would be fewer miles driven each year.
What changing conditions? Please, if you're going to argue against waste, there are far better targets than the USPS.
It would also cut employment at the post office, which is where the unions get all pissed off.
How so? The same person delivers my mail everyday. It's just that these people would need other full time employement. Do you have a plan to create jobs to fill the void? As far as actually processing the mail goes, they have machines to do that already. Very few people work in mail sorting anymore. So I'm not sure what your point really is.
Do you really care if your phone bill arrives on Thursday instead of Wednesday?
I receive other mail that is time senstive that are not bills. Nice attempt to try and obscure things by reduction though. Again, YOU don't care about when some things arrive. Others do. I'm sure the family of a solidier in Iraq cares if they hear something on Wednesday instead of Thursday. I'm sure there are plenty of other valid reasons for wanting timely delivery of mail.
No, I didn't miss it, but I try to base my judgements on statistical likelihoods rather than spectacular one-offs.
Stabbings are more common in the US than shootings.
It's possible that someone will break into my house tonight and stab me to death for no reason, but it's extremely unlikely. I'm far more likely to die by misreading the instructions on a bottle of aspirin, so if I have to choose between buying a gun and buying a pair of reading glasses I'll choose the glasses.
That's a false dichotomy, since I assume you could afford both. Also, I think your method of evaluating risk-reward is a bit off. It's propably pretty rare that your house burns down too, but I assume you have home owner's insurance?
Part of evaluating the risk is not just the likelihood that something will happen, but also the consequences if it were to happen. Also, you need to evaluate the cost. It's also unlikely that someone will steal something out of my car (or the car itself), yet I always lock it. A pair of glasses probably costs about the same as a gun. So the cost of protecting yourself is low, the risk that someone will murder you is low, but the consequence is pretty high. You'd be dead. So to exclude it (especially since I assume you purchase home owner's insurance at a substancially higher cost) is silly.
When did I say it was OK for someone to violate my home? Do you really think there are only two options: everyone gets robbed all the time, or everyone owns guns? Because I have to tell you there are other possibilities, and I live in one of them: a society with very little violent crime and very few guns.
You seem to take it pretty lightly. You think that someone that breaks into your home still doesn't pose a danger to you.. not enough to try and protect yourself at least. And you've had your home broken into, to date I have not.
Everybody does not get robbed all the time, however if everyone owned guns crime WILL drop. Its been proven in numereous studies. The risk to the would-be criminal is raised signficiantly, so they decide simply not to engage in crime. Everyone owning guns will stop the small percentage that think its ok to B&E, mug, etc.
The US has the highest per capita murder rate of any first world country.
A fact which likely has more to do with our "War on Drugs" than anything else, combined with banning of guns.
I can't prove that a vicious cycle of gun ownership by criminals and gun ownership by non-criminals contributes to that problem - all I can say is that the theory makes sense in my mind. As I said before, I'm not blaming non-criminals for owning guns, and I'm not claiming that simply banning guns will solve the problem, but I do think a problem exists. Don't you?
Certainly there's a problem, but it has nothing to do with guns. Maybe you should do some reading. High gun ownership does not lead to more crime, so I don't know why you would object to having people own guns. You seem to be stepping back a bit from your previous statements, since I was advocating non-criminals owning guns to protect themselves.
Within the US that may be true - I haven't seen the statistics - but it's certainly not true when you compare the US to other first world countries.
Again, more reading would be in order. Canada has pretty much the same rate of gun ownership, but less crime. My solution to crime in the US is for people to defend themselves, including owning a gun. Another part of that solution would be getting rid of the War on Drugs, although I'm not sure that will solve all of the crime problems.
In the 15 years I've been using the postal service, I've had two items that got lost. One came months later, the other never arrived. So your assertation that mail gets lost "all the time" is simply horseshit.
Sorry, but its pretty arrogant of you to suggest that two other people change how they interact because you THINK it should be "good enough for everyone."
Your argument is predicated on the idea that your end user is not a developer. In many of the areas that open source shines, there is at least significant overlap between those groups. To say, for instance, that getting code as feedback for a project like GCC is a 'net negative' would be quite foolish, ditto for projects like Apache or Emacs. Of course, developers need desktops too, but the success of OSS in developing desktop software has been somewhat more limited than in the more technical communities, doubtless at least in part to the perceived weakness you point out, so in that case I would say you may be right.
But for the mast majority of software, the group of users and the subset of that group which are developers are a very high ration. GCC has a limited audience; accounting software is not so limited. Video editing software isn't either.
As for the assumption that "closed source vendors aren't delivering what their customers want", I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the fact is that they aren't. That doesn't in any way diminish the fact that open source vendors aren't either, but if everybody was absolutely hunky-dory with every piece of software on the market, nobody would sell anything and we'd all get to find new jobs. The software market, however, is far from placidly sterile, with fiercely competitive entities (both closed and open) fighting for users and market share. In large part, it will be the group that delivers the most and most relevant features who will 'win' in such environments, and that means that having this kind of feedback can be the difference between a successful company or project, and a chapter 11 filing or 404 page. Again, I hesitate to speculate, but the odds that what one customer wants another one does too seem pretty good to me. The fact that the first one wanted it badly enough to write the code for it, or to hire somebody to write the code for it, is a even stronger indication that there is a need for software that does that.
The proof that closed source IS developing what users want is the fact that businesses making closed source are still around. Your assertation is based on nothing but your opinion. But please, feel free to point me to something that is proof of your point.
Speaking to the point about not all developers being equal, I think you may have misunderstood. My point was that code that comes from people using the software is more likely to reflect the needs of people who use the software than code that comes down from on high. Obviously, many development teams are required to go through exhaustive testing processes before their software is allowed out into the wider world, but lets face it- startlingly few developers in corporate programming actually use the code they write. That's a problem, and it's not one that's going to be solved by any specific remedy I can think of, otherwise I'd be in Monte Carlo sipping a drink and being fawned over by skinny brainless women instead of writing this little diatribe.
Developers don't need to use the software. There's another group of people that have the business knowledge and DO use the software that know. They can relay this to developers. Or are you suggesting that a worker on an assembly line in an auto manufacturing plant builds the car "better" because they drive cars? I think not.
All I'm saying is that OSS seems to be on to something when it comes to certain types of development. It is definitely working, and I can tell you that most of the people I do business with don't give a tinker's damn what the initial cost of their software is if it doesn't save them money down the road. There is a compelling argument to be made for code as feedback, and for the competitiveness of software developed by its own end users. What remains to be seen now is whether the OSS community can withstand the inevitable uptick of consumers who are not developers that have come with its incursions into desktop software.
Of course you can make software if developers work for free. Those making the most significant changes are likely paid to work on OSS all day. Those that provide direction most certainly are paid to write the software. But they get free help from the outside.
Maybe you missed the story I liked were people were stabbed? Is being stabbed to death somehow better than shot? Perhaps if you and all your neighbors HAD guns, no one would have been burglarized at all. I don't understand this thinking where it's ok for someone to violate your home, one place you should be able to be safe from others. Does it not bother you that, if inclined, you and your family could have had all of your throats slit?
There's no such "cycle" in the US. The fact is that very few people actually do own guns in the US. Hand guns are illegal to own in NYC, others must be registered and you have to go through a process so convoluted that many people don't.
In places where head-of-households are required to own a gun and ammo as well as receive training in its use, all forms of crime are lower. Here in VT where its easier to get carry permit, crime is also low, especially violent crime. Its the areas that guns are outlawed where you have higher rates of violent crime.
Proportionality only matters when discussing a punishment that suits the crime. Whether he's a man, woman, blind, drunk or deaf doesn't play into it. Do you really think this is the first blind person that will be going to prison? Get a grip.
Yes. You act as if you're not causing harm. If your house is broken into, the only reasonable thing to do is assume your life is in danger. What legitimate reason does someone have to break into your house? You act in a threatening way you should expect harm to come to you.
What do you think should happen? Ask them politely to leave? Do you think they break in to throw you a suprise birthday party?
Please, wake up. You're only as safe as YOU make yourself.
Really, so who's life did you put in danger for fun and now realize it wasn't funny? I knew at 10 it wasn't funny to seriously hurt someone. What took you so long?
Doesn't matter. He's not going to change significantly at 17. We're not talking about sending someone a pizza, he's putting peoples lives in danger. 17 or 18, you should know the difference.
The grandmother? She shot at the cops after they broke into her house. The cops were returning fire.
Um, slow down there buddy. If someone breaks into your house, its totally reasonable to shoot at them to defend yourself. How is she to know if they are cops or not?
I don't think you know how the phone system works. Its not setup so that numbers are reall locked down to an area or house; there's no reason all 802 numbers must be VT other than its convient for us. But the hardware isn't limited by this anymore.
Really? At least two people being injuried doesn't play into this at all? The fact that there is a very real possibility someone would be killed if he isn't stopped now doesn't matter? I call that a callous indifference to human beings. Get real. There's no reason not to try him as an adult, do you think he'd wake up next year and think "wow, that was really stupid of me." If he hasn't learned it by now, he's probably never going to.
Well, sucks to be him huh? I guess he'll have to fall down a few stairs in prison; should have thought of that before he did this shit. His actions are not excusable, and his disabilities matter not when deciding his punishment.
No, I was just giving reasons as to why I haven't been upgrading my computer...based on other people I know, it does apply to many folks...it apparently applies to the two other people that responded to my post as well.
All anecdote though. PC sales are still going strong, although if we really are in a recession that will change. If we are, that's not an indication that people don't want to upgrade, its that they need to keep their house more.
Granted, graphics and control schemes on PC's are for the most part superior, but the capabilities of consoles have more or less caught up to the capabilities of PCs (insofar as gaming is concerned.)
You will always have better graphics and sound on a PC than your console. That's as true today as it always has been. The edge the consoles have is they are simpler and they work on your TV, since people don't usually crowd around a single computer. Hardware-wise, consoles are bet hands down everytiime.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not your strawman, so put down the torch. I don't think this is the year of the Linux desktop, and have been quite explicit in saying that I think that OSS is very good at some things, while closed source models seem to do better at others.
Which was totally irrelevant to my comments meant for the OP.
I think that many Linux desktop applications are at or approaching the point of competitiveness with their closed-source brethren, but I also think that its going to be a long time before some parts of the industry come under contention.
Do you run Linux on your desktop? I've found this to be patently false.
My initial question was simply whether OSS will wind up dominating arenas with disjoint user and developer bases the way that it does where those two groups are closely aligned, and you ask when we'll know the answer to that. My general feeling is that we already know that it is possible for projects like Firefox to contest some segments of the market, but that we probably won't see just one model in very many parts of the industry unless an application that simply obliterates its competition winds up emerging, and I don't think its possible to predict whether such a rogue entity would be open or closed.
You ask what my standards for making that judgment would be, and if you're driving at the point that its a subjective estimation, you're right.
Part of my point is that the FF team has a big player backing them with money. Should that company no longer fund the primary developers, would FF survive? I don't really think so. GNUCash is a more appropriate model; the developers think I want all the gory details of double entry accounting, which I don't. Things like MS Money or Quicken hide those details for me. GNUCash also was lacking in any reporting of any kind. They even admit it: "I'd guess that GnuCash's biggest problem is that programmers don't use the software." These are the majority of OSS projects.
You ask what my standards for making that judgment would be, and if you're driving at the point that its a subjective estimation, you're right. Market position is very difficult to correctly ascertain, and I don't particularly think its the kind of thing either of us really wants to spend our lives doing. As a result, I hope you'll forgive me when I borrow the words of Anthony Comstock and give you the deeply unsatisfying answer that "I'll know it when I see it".
Well, the problem is that without objective qualifications we can't really ever evaluate if your statement is true.
As far as it not having been settled, well, we're sitting here arguing about it.
Well, I imagine we could forever too, since we don't have anything objective to go on.
Sure, I'm writing this from a Linux machine running Firefox, but from your earlier statements I envision you doing the same from a Windows box and IE. With any luck, competition will help to improve the quality of all the contenders.
Windows and FF actually, although I am using IE about the same as FF now that IE7 is out.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear more about your experience with open source. What projects did you think were most or least competitive?
It was harder to use. GNUcash wasn't cutting it (no reports), I still had random crashes. The documentation is non-existent in most cases, and managing my network is easier with Windows Server 2003 (SBS). And of course RPM hell. I felt like I was spending more time fighting to get Linux to do what I want than actually having it do what I wanted. And I put the time in too; I had run a linux server for 10 years and on the desktop for three. It was honestly more frustrating than Windows.
One link its "plenty of evidence?" Maybe to you. I sit here typing this using Vista Ultimate, and I actually like the simplicity if the shutdown menu. So while at the bottom it looked like things didn't work, it seems it did come together at the end.
Not that the link describes an ideal situation either, but the author seems to have been relegated to a team that they didn't want working on anything else. Seriously, a whole team for the shutdown menu? He even admits most of the code to shutdown the computer was going to be written by others. Maybe his team was just incompetent?
You have your speculation, I have mine. Neither of us were there, and unlike Joel, I'll not run off an make a big deal about one blog post.
If you don't notice a significant flaw in the security or driver model during 5+ years of development and testing then yes, you are incompetent. At the very least your testing is incompetent.
Right, because the driver model was being worked on every day for five years. I'm sure it wasn't worked on, finished and had some initial testing then left. Certainly, it wasn't testing again toward the end, when the flaw was then uncovered.
Your statement is so asinine I can only assume you've never worked on a large piece of software before.
We're not talking about a broken link on a web site. We're talking about an OS that goes on hundreds of millions of computers. Make a few mistakes in the some of the details, but don't fsck up the model.
Again, I can only assume you've never worked on anything really large and complex. If you had, you'd realize that yes, smart people can overlook something important because no one thought of that one particular angle which the model breaks down.
I also suspect that if MS did nothing and a vulnerability was discovered you'd be bitching how they did nothing as well. But please, when you really design something large and complex and you get it right every single time, let us know. But be prepared to let us know who the experts are that reviewed your code so we know its true and not just your overinflated ego.
Sorry, where did I say it wasn't their fault? I'm merely stating the OP is hold MS to a standard that no one could attain and still release a reasonably priced OS. As far as rushing goes, its entirely possible that is the fault of the manager that jumped ship to google. If you have an offer on the table with expiration dates, are you going to miss it so you can get that one last project out the door? I think not.
Sorry, I disagree. The design had a flaw, but that doesn't mean the design overall is bad, nor does it indicate "horrible project management." People make mistakes, people miss things. Sorry, it happens, but to act like YOU would never have it happen to you is pretty silly. No one is perfect.
Sorry, its not my fault you didn't comprehend it. Especially since you jumped in to my reply to another poster. I have been rational this whole time, until you started with the insults.
For about eight years now I've been hearing "this is the year of linux on the desktop." It hasn't happened. I even gave up on it, and found that commercial software DOES meet my needs better than the OSS camp. I suspect there are many out there in a similar spot. I can't imagine the typical home user though, if it wasn't sutiable for me.
But please, tell me how we will know when the question is settled? What is your criteria? What makes you think it hasn't already been settled?
Frankly, you aren't illustrating a superb grasp of the realities of either open or closed source development, or the businesses that survive on those models.
I will presume that my lack of eloquence is the reason that you failed to grasp the first point, because it is very simple: the OSS model is good at some things. The closed source model is good at others. One of the places where open source has demonstrated the most significant advantages over closed source is where the developer and user base ARE closely aligned. That is all.
Frankly, you're a pompus ass. Stop with your thinly veiled insults. No one said that for a small number of cases OSS can work better. That's not the point of the thread, its whether or not the it ALWAYS does so, and whether or not closed source can match it in those few cases.
As for your second point, it's just plain illogical. A company exists therefore its customers must be happy with its products- obviously and flatly untrue, and, if I may, any level of experience in the software industry would enlighten you to that fact.
If you had any experience at all in the business world, you'd see that companies that do not deliver what their customers want go out of business, except monopolies. But please, point out ten or so software companies where none of the customers are happy with the product yet buy it anyway.
Furthermore, your point that developers are akin to production line workers (which is certainly not the case in all but the largest software shops) ignores the reality that it takes experience at more than one level of your organization to make it effective. It seems significant to me that the portions of the software industry that have the highest levels of bottom-to-top experience are the ones that have the highest customer satisfaction.
Well, according to you, small closed source software companies don't exist because they aren't giving their customers what they want. For some reason, you seem to think its not possible for a closed souce shop to deliver customer satisfaction. Or are you changing your mind here?
As for your last statement, you are partially correct, though I hope you'll forgive my ignorance when I say that I don't see what that has to do with the point you quoted. Many top developers are paid by someone to write code for OSS projects, but you are incorrect when you presume that the controller of the code is paying their salaries.
While Linus may enjoy being paid to do pretty much whatever he wants for Linux, most OSS developers (those paid to work on OSS) aren't in this boat. OSS developers that moonlight are paid largely by closed source shops.
As for your last statement, you are partially correct, though I hope you'll forgive my ignorance when I say that I don't see what that has to do with the point you quoted. Many top developers are paid by someone to write code for OSS projects, but you are incorrect when you presume that the controller of the code is paying their salaries.
You point to the brightest light as your example. However, most OSS projects never achive the level of where someone is paid to work on them. And if you think that RedHat isn't directing the developers it has, you're sadly mistaken.
As to your point, sorry that you seem to be verrying off to some other direction. My point was that for most software, the OSS model will fail. The fact that it can work (and not demonstratably better than the closed source model) is pretty irrelevent.
The other poster was claiming that twice-a-week mail delivery (which wasn't my idea, but it makes sense) was impractical. Its not. It saves energy, resources, etc. The only thing stopping it is inertia and the postal employee's union.
Yes, but some people care about getting things immedately. It's nothing to do with inertia, I simply want things to arrive as quickly as possible.
A second claim was that not everyone who sends him money can do the "direct deposit" thing - you no longer need direct deposit to send money via email. So then it became "not everyone has the internet / email", then "not everyone has a bank account." Well, if they don't have a bank account, how are they writing checks? If you don't have a bank account, how are you cashing them? A lot of banks won't cash checks made out to 3rd parties any more because of fraud.
I strongly suspect the "bank" is PayPal. I wouldn't trust that company with $0.10 of my money. Oh, you also realize you don't need a bank account to RECIEVE checks, right? You can always cash the check at the bank on which it is drawn, and there are plenty of check cashing businesses around. Just because YOU don't think it's possible doesn't mean it can't be done.
In other words, its just a series of reasons to maintain the status quo in the face of changing conditions, rather than trying to allocate limted resources in a more efficient manner. The original proposal (twice-a-week mail delivery) would cut energy waste by the post office. It would also reduce vehicle wear and maintenance costs, as there would be fewer miles driven each year.
What changing conditions? Please, if you're going to argue against waste, there are far better targets than the USPS.
It would also cut employment at the post office, which is where the unions get all pissed off.
How so? The same person delivers my mail everyday. It's just that these people would need other full time employement. Do you have a plan to create jobs to fill the void? As far as actually processing the mail goes, they have machines to do that already. Very few people work in mail sorting anymore. So I'm not sure what your point really is.
Do you really care if your phone bill arrives on Thursday instead of Wednesday?
I receive other mail that is time senstive that are not bills. Nice attempt to try and obscure things by reduction though. Again, YOU don't care about when some things arrive. Others do. I'm sure the family of a solidier in Iraq cares if they hear something on Wednesday instead of Thursday. I'm sure there are plenty of other valid reasons for wanting timely delivery of mail.
No, I didn't miss it, but I try to base my judgements on statistical likelihoods rather than spectacular one-offs.
Stabbings are more common in the US than shootings.
It's possible that someone will break into my house tonight and stab me to death for no reason, but it's extremely unlikely. I'm far more likely to die by misreading the instructions on a bottle of aspirin, so if I have to choose between buying a gun and buying a pair of reading glasses I'll choose the glasses.
That's a false dichotomy, since I assume you could afford both. Also, I think your method of evaluating risk-reward is a bit off. It's propably pretty rare that your house burns down too, but I assume you have home owner's insurance?
Part of evaluating the risk is not just the likelihood that something will happen, but also the consequences if it were to happen. Also, you need to evaluate the cost. It's also unlikely that someone will steal something out of my car (or the car itself), yet I always lock it. A pair of glasses probably costs about the same as a gun. So the cost of protecting yourself is low, the risk that someone will murder you is low, but the consequence is pretty high. You'd be dead. So to exclude it (especially since I assume you purchase home owner's insurance at a substancially higher cost) is silly.
When did I say it was OK for someone to violate my home? Do you really think there are only two options: everyone gets robbed all the time, or everyone owns guns? Because I have to tell you there are other possibilities, and I live in one of them: a society with very little violent crime and very few guns.
You seem to take it pretty lightly. You think that someone that breaks into your home still doesn't pose a danger to you.. not enough to try and protect yourself at least. And you've had your home broken into, to date I have not.
Everybody does not get robbed all the time, however if everyone owned guns crime WILL drop. Its been proven in numereous studies. The risk to the would-be criminal is raised signficiantly, so they decide simply not to engage in crime. Everyone owning guns will stop the small percentage that think its ok to B&E, mug, etc.
The US has the highest per capita murder rate of any first world country.
A fact which likely has more to do with our "War on Drugs" than anything else, combined with banning of guns.
I can't prove that a vicious cycle of gun ownership by criminals and gun ownership by non-criminals contributes to that problem - all I can say is that the theory makes sense in my mind. As I said before, I'm not blaming non-criminals for owning guns, and I'm not claiming that simply banning guns will solve the problem, but I do think a problem exists. Don't you?
Certainly there's a problem, but it has nothing to do with guns. Maybe you should do some reading. High gun ownership does not lead to more crime, so I don't know why you would object to having people own guns. You seem to be stepping back a bit from your previous statements, since I was advocating non-criminals owning guns to protect themselves.
Within the US that may be true - I haven't seen the statistics - but it's certainly not true when you compare the US to other first world countries.
Again, more reading would be in order. Canada has pretty much the same rate of gun ownership, but less crime. My solution to crime in the US is for people to defend themselves, including owning a gun. Another part of that solution would be getting rid of the War on Drugs, although I'm not sure that will solve all of the crime problems.
In the 15 years I've been using the postal service, I've had two items that got lost. One came months later, the other never arrived. So your assertation that mail gets lost "all the time" is simply horseshit.
Sorry, but its pretty arrogant of you to suggest that two other people change how they interact because you THINK it should be "good enough for everyone."
Your argument is predicated on the idea that your end user is not a developer. In many of the areas that open source shines, there is at least significant overlap between those groups. To say, for instance, that getting code as feedback for a project like GCC is a 'net negative' would be quite foolish, ditto for projects like Apache or Emacs. Of course, developers need desktops too, but the success of OSS in developing desktop software has been somewhat more limited than in the more technical communities, doubtless at least in part to the perceived weakness you point out, so in that case I would say you may be right.
But for the mast majority of software, the group of users and the subset of that group which are developers are a very high ration. GCC has a limited audience; accounting software is not so limited. Video editing software isn't either.
As for the assumption that "closed source vendors aren't delivering what their customers want", I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the fact is that they aren't. That doesn't in any way diminish the fact that open source vendors aren't either, but if everybody was absolutely hunky-dory with every piece of software on the market, nobody would sell anything and we'd all get to find new jobs. The software market, however, is far from placidly sterile, with fiercely competitive entities (both closed and open) fighting for users and market share. In large part, it will be the group that delivers the most and most relevant features who will 'win' in such environments, and that means that having this kind of feedback can be the difference between a successful company or project, and a chapter 11 filing or 404 page. Again, I hesitate to speculate, but the odds that what one customer wants another one does too seem pretty good to me. The fact that the first one wanted it badly enough to write the code for it, or to hire somebody to write the code for it, is a even stronger indication that there is a need for software that does that.
The proof that closed source IS developing what users want is the fact that businesses making closed source are still around. Your assertation is based on nothing but your opinion. But please, feel free to point me to something that is proof of your point.
Speaking to the point about not all developers being equal, I think you may have misunderstood. My point was that code that comes from people using the software is more likely to reflect the needs of people who use the software than code that comes down from on high. Obviously, many development teams are required to go through exhaustive testing processes before their software is allowed out into the wider world, but lets face it- startlingly few developers in corporate programming actually use the code they write. That's a problem, and it's not one that's going to be solved by any specific remedy I can think of, otherwise I'd be in Monte Carlo sipping a drink and being fawned over by skinny brainless women instead of writing this little diatribe.
Developers don't need to use the software. There's another group of people that have the business knowledge and DO use the software that know. They can relay this to developers. Or are you suggesting that a worker on an assembly line in an auto manufacturing plant builds the car "better" because they drive cars? I think not.
All I'm saying is that OSS seems to be on to something when it comes to certain types of development. It is definitely working, and I can tell you that most of the people I do business with don't give a tinker's damn what the initial cost of their software is if it doesn't save them money down the road. There is a compelling argument to be made for code as feedback, and for the competitiveness of software developed by its own end users. What remains to be seen now is whether the OSS community can withstand the inevitable uptick of consumers who are not developers that have come with its incursions into desktop software.
Of course you can make software if developers work for free. Those making the most significant changes are likely paid to work on OSS all day. Those that provide direction most certainly are paid to write the software. But they get free help from the outside.
Maybe you missed the story I liked were people were stabbed? Is being stabbed to death somehow better than shot? Perhaps if you and all your neighbors HAD guns, no one would have been burglarized at all. I don't understand this thinking where it's ok for someone to violate your home, one place you should be able to be safe from others. Does it not bother you that, if inclined, you and your family could have had all of your throats slit?
There's no such "cycle" in the US. The fact is that very few people actually do own guns in the US. Hand guns are illegal to own in NYC, others must be registered and you have to go through a process so convoluted that many people don't.
In places where head-of-households are required to own a gun and ammo as well as receive training in its use, all forms of crime are lower. Here in VT where its easier to get carry permit, crime is also low, especially violent crime. Its the areas that guns are outlawed where you have higher rates of violent crime.
Please tell me where you live that is free from crime and violence?
Proportionality only matters when discussing a punishment that suits the crime. Whether he's a man, woman, blind, drunk or deaf doesn't play into it. Do you really think this is the first blind person that will be going to prison? Get a grip.
Yes. You act as if you're not causing harm. If your house is broken into, the only reasonable thing to do is assume your life is in danger. What legitimate reason does someone have to break into your house? You act in a threatening way you should expect harm to come to you.
What do you think should happen? Ask them politely to leave? Do you think they break in to throw you a suprise birthday party?
Please, wake up. You're only as safe as YOU make yourself.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042007/news/regionalnews/l_i__home_invasion_slaying_regionalnews_frank_ryan______and_c_j__sullivan.htm
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cops-arrest-suspect-in-attempted-home-invasion/3555644578
Really, so who's life did you put in danger for fun and now realize it wasn't funny? I knew at 10 it wasn't funny to seriously hurt someone. What took you so long?
Doesn't matter. He's not going to change significantly at 17. We're not talking about sending someone a pizza, he's putting peoples lives in danger. 17 or 18, you should know the difference.
Well, the TV episode was about bounty hunters, not SWAT teams. Police error is nothing new, not that it makes the situtation better.
The grandmother? She shot at the cops after they broke into her house. The cops were returning fire.
Um, slow down there buddy. If someone breaks into your house, its totally reasonable to shoot at them to defend yourself. How is she to know if they are cops or not?
I don't think you know how the phone system works. Its not setup so that numbers are reall locked down to an area or house; there's no reason all 802 numbers must be VT other than its convient for us. But the hardware isn't limited by this anymore.
Really? At least two people being injuried doesn't play into this at all? The fact that there is a very real possibility someone would be killed if he isn't stopped now doesn't matter? I call that a callous indifference to human beings. Get real. There's no reason not to try him as an adult, do you think he'd wake up next year and think "wow, that was really stupid of me." If he hasn't learned it by now, he's probably never going to.
Well, sucks to be him huh? I guess he'll have to fall down a few stairs in prison; should have thought of that before he did this shit. His actions are not excusable, and his disabilities matter not when deciding his punishment.
Um, can you point to an actual case, not a TV episode?
No, I was just giving reasons as to why I haven't been upgrading my computer...based on other people I know, it does apply to many folks...it apparently applies to the two other people that responded to my post as well.
All anecdote though. PC sales are still going strong, although if we really are in a recession that will change. If we are, that's not an indication that people don't want to upgrade, its that they need to keep their house more.
Granted, graphics and control schemes on PC's are for the most part superior, but the capabilities of consoles have more or less caught up to the capabilities of PCs (insofar as gaming is concerned.)
You will always have better graphics and sound on a PC than your console. That's as true today as it always has been. The edge the consoles have is they are simpler and they work on your TV, since people don't usually crowd around a single computer. Hardware-wise, consoles are bet hands down everytiime.