No. Absolutely not. I had Internet access with OS/2 out of the box when Microsoft was telling us that the Internet was no big thing and we should all subscribe to MSN (which was not an Internet provider back then.)
Microsoft turned around pretty fast when it became obvious that they could not ignore the Internet, but they were followers, not leaders.
I sent him this reply. I wonder if he'll respond. (I reply to clumsy trolls too.) As I crafted this, I realized how little sense what he claims made. It seems useful to have people like him refuting open source software because his claims are so transparently baseless.
Greetings,
I would like to answer your question:
"Why buy expensive software or spend millions to
develop it yourself? You can get complex systems
at absolutely NO COST!"
Most of the open source software with which I have worked is what I would consider 'infra-structure' code. This includes things like the Linux kernel, Apache web server and GNU C/C++ compiler. You could no more construct an complex system by installing these than you could build a towering sky scraper by delivering a crane and pile of steal beams to a construction site.
You still need to pay technical staff to administer the system, configure the server and write programs to implement your final applications.
I would also like to comment on one of your other statements:
"While your aging, over-21 staff demands high
salaries and benefits, and fusses with security,
documentation, and project planning, cyber sapiens
work for a few dollars an hour and can manage
several projects in their heads without writing a
single thing down."
Your clear implications are that open source projects lack "security, documentation, and project planning." My experience is that this is a common problem that is not restricted to open source. I have personal experience with shops where *no* documentation was required when producing code and consequently there was no planning beyond an idea in someone's head or a few words exchanged in a hallway. This was development of proprietary applications by highly paid professionals.I suspect that open source projects may be better documented during development in order to keep a widespread team working together.
I want to address your paragraph:
This is the alluring pitch of open source software.
We may have to give up project planning, quality
control, coding standards, accountability, version
control, and support, but it?s FREE and we get the
ability to modify the source code ourselves,
something that is extremely dangerous to do, was
discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway.
Your points:
- Project Planning. This is flat out wrong. As much planning
goes into open source as goes into commercial software. There
are mailing lists and discussion boards where the planning
process is exposed to publivc view. The planning process for
closed source software is (surprise) closed.
- quality control. This is a ridiculous claim. Alpha and beta
versions of open source software are available for testing and
are tested rigorously by the user and developer communities.
In addition, developers can peruse the source code for
potential problems - a capability that is absent in closed
source products. On the other hand, testing of closed source
products is often limited to in house staff and a few
carefully chosen beta testers (and later, by purchasers of the
software.)
- Coding standards. The coding standards required to submit code
to the larger open source projects are far stricter than any
requirements I have faced in the closed source world.
- accountability. The author's good name goes on any code that
is released as open source. This is not true of most closed
source efforts. Is there anything more valuable than one's
reputation? Which sphere has higher accountability?
- version control. Again, this claim holds no water. Every piece
of open source software I have ever worked with has been under
version control, unlike some proprietary systems with which I
have had the pleasure (?) to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
Or was that thired time pauys for them all. Anyway, Contrats to the folks that made three great movies!
No. Absolutely not. I had Internet access with OS/2 out of the box when Microsoft was telling us that the Internet was no big thing and we should all subscribe to MSN (which was not an Internet provider back then.)
Microsoft turned around pretty fast when it became obvious that they could not ignore the Internet, but they were followers, not leaders.
I sent him this reply. I wonder if he'll respond. (I reply to clumsy trolls too.) As I crafted this, I realized how little sense what he claims made. It seems useful to have people like him refuting open source software because his claims are so transparently baseless.
Greetings,
I would like to answer your question:
"Why buy expensive software or spend millions to
develop it yourself? You can get complex systems
at absolutely NO COST!"
Most of the open source software with which I have worked is what I would consider 'infra-structure' code. This includes things like the Linux kernel, Apache web server and GNU C/C++ compiler. You could no more construct an complex system by installing these than you could build a towering sky scraper by delivering a crane and pile of steal beams to a construction site.
You still need to pay technical staff to administer the system, configure the server and write programs to implement your final applications.
I would also like to comment on one of your other statements:
"While your aging, over-21 staff demands high
salaries and benefits, and fusses with security,
documentation, and project planning, cyber sapiens
work for a few dollars an hour and can manage
several projects in their heads without writing a
single thing down."
Your clear implications are that open source projects lack "security, documentation, and project planning." My experience is that this is a common problem that is not restricted to open source. I have personal experience with shops where *no* documentation was required when producing code and consequently there was no planning beyond an idea in someone's head or a few words exchanged in a hallway. This was development of proprietary applications by highly paid professionals.I suspect that open source projects may be better documented during development in order to keep a widespread team working together.
I want to address your paragraph:
This is the alluring pitch of open source software.
We may have to give up project planning, quality
control, coding standards, accountability, version
control, and support, but it?s FREE and we get the
ability to modify the source code ourselves,
something that is extremely dangerous to do, was
discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway.
Your points:
- Project Planning. This is flat out wrong. As much planning
goes into open source as goes into commercial software. There
are mailing lists and discussion boards where the planning
process is exposed to publivc view. The planning process for
closed source software is (surprise) closed.
- quality control. This is a ridiculous claim. Alpha and beta
versions of open source software are available for testing and
are tested rigorously by the user and developer communities.
In addition, developers can peruse the source code for
potential problems - a capability that is absent in closed
source products. On the other hand, testing of closed source
products is often limited to in house staff and a few
carefully chosen beta testers (and later, by purchasers of the
software.)
- Coding standards. The coding standards required to submit code
to the larger open source projects are far stricter than any
requirements I have faced in the closed source world.
- accountability. The author's good name goes on any code that
is released as open source. This is not true of most closed
source efforts. Is there anything more valuable than one's
reputation? Which sphere has higher accountability?
- version control. Again, this claim holds no water. Every piece
of open source software I have ever worked with has been under
version control, unlike some proprietary systems with which I
have had the pleasure (?) to work with.
- support. There are nu