I think the most pathetic thing out of that Q&A, by far, is that they basically admitted that they're basing their entire damn game on that CG movie that they didn't even have a hand in creating!
It just boggles my mind that the sequel to one of the most mediocre PS2 games ever is getting this much hype that we're even discussing this matter at all.
I don't see why people keep comparing the PS3 and the Wii. The fact is, each one is targeting a different audience. You can not only see it in the final product, but the advertising and marketing they're employing to sell it.
There are benefits to targeting the people Sony is. These people would be a lot more likely to spend money on other high-tech Sony gadgets. Nintendo makes nothing but games, so their sole purpose in life is to sell as many "toys" (as you put it) as possible. Sony has bigger things to pay attention to besides their games business.
The real reason Sony is coming under fire isn't entirely that they didn't make an affordable toy, the way Nintendo has. It's not as simple as you think it is.
The average user of the Xbox 360 will understand the difference between watching a form of streaming television content and downloading specific videos when they get a chance to experience both.
In general, I would assume that most people who buy a next-generation console are quite a bit more knowledgeable about technology than you give them credit for.
Uh, excuse me, but you did more than just ask a question. Your last line was: "Its got to be pretty damned high." That's why that dude jumped on you (rightfully).
I work for one of the top cellphone game developers, and I have a different perspective on this than you guys. It's amazing how many nay-sayers there are here, despite the fact that the cellphone gaming market is one of the most fastest-growing gaming industries today. My company, for example, has operated for several years and in just the last year had increased their profits by several hundred percent. In just the first quarter of THIS year, we've just announced that our revenue is up by another 50%, and right now the sky's the limit.
Yes, many games aren't ideally suited for the cell phone's controls, but considering that many of our games are 3D and have the graphical levels equivalent to a PS1, to say that the games look like "Atari" or whatever some of you guys have been saying is ridiculous. All I'm saying is that citing technical limitations when commenting against the cell phone game industry is ridiculous and shows just how out of touch you are with the technology that is already out there and owned by millions of people RIGHT NOW. Just because you or your friends are stuck with something like a Samsung A620 or an old Razr model doesn't mean that many other people own better devices.
The days of slowly-refreshing LCD displays and pitiful resolutions are over. Yes, those phones still come out, and they're given out like candy to the lowest-paying customers, but many people already have extremely high-performing phones (LG 8100 is one of my favorites). The resolution is very high (considering the size of the screen) and with recent announcements by some graphics hardware manufacturers of increasing their cell phone presense, expect cell phones to become exponentially more powerful in the very near future.
As far as controls go, we're now seeing ergonomically-designed phones like the LG 9800 (look this beauty up) that are the size of normal phones but, when flipped open, have a full QWERTY keyboard and directional pads that work great for gaming. The number of models that work like this is, again, going to increase, just like the hardware performance has been increasing at an astronomical pace in just the last 3 years. So yes, maybe some games aren't suited for SOME current phone models yet, but there are already devices out there that ARE, and the number of these models will only increase.
Now, I grant you that the pricing scheme of "renting" games, and the fact that cell phone carriers do a piss-poor job of marketing the content, stands in the way of wider availability. But to say that there's no market out there (when it's growth has yet to slow down) or that the games suck (read the reviews, many of these games are critically-acclaimed), or that the hardware isn't suited for gaming (look at all the MODERN phones coming out now, and all the phones that will be out in a year or two) is RIDICULOUS and shows nothing but ignorance on your part.
Mobile gaming isn't for everyone, and the best sellers will likely always be quick puzzle games and 2D platformers, but that doesn't mean that millions of people don't want to buy them (they do, and more will in the future), or that these games can't be wonderfully-designed, or that they all have to look like Pong.
Homoeroticism in games does not exist for the purpose of the females. It exists for the men. This is why wrestlers wear skimpy bikini underwear while flexing their muscles, and why action stars of the 80s never wore a shirt to combat (Rocky, Rambo, etc). They flex their oiled muscles for adolescent boys, who consider these body types to be role models for themselves. Yes, it's homoeroticism. No, it's not eye-candy for girls. I'm sure there are books written on this subject if you take a few minutes to search through Amazon.com.
The internet is a HORRIBLE setting for discussion. It's not real-time. Each individual writes several paragraphs at a time, compounding on errors and incorrect assumptions to present their point of view, making it hard for the opponent to pick it apart and debate the issue point by point. And even when someone tries to do just that, their opponent will INVARIABLY and ALWAYS ignore at least 80% of the points being disputed and focus on just one, making for an incredibly frustrating "conversation".
Another horrible setting for discussion is television. Most people who debate on television are not necessarily well-versed in their supposed areas of expertise (Bill O'Reilly has no form of political or historical education or experience whatsoever that is in any way beyond that of an average college graduate). The reason these people are debating on television is because they're telegenic, confrontational, witty, and entertaining. Their opinions frequently do not make any sense for this reason: They lack the understanding of the topic to form educated conclusions. It's just as bad when newspaper columnists are brought in to debate on television. These people have degrees in either English or Journalism. They know how to write extremely well, but their opinions are often far less informed than those who specifically specialize in social studies, history, political science, or psychology.
I've noticed that the best way, by far, to have a debate is to do it one on one, without an audience to play to, and specifically using the Socratic Method. Ask what the other person believes in, ask them to back it up, ask them to illustration how the evidence and the conclusion are connected, and top it all off, ask them why your OWN opinion doesn't match. Don't tell them, ASK them. Always ask. If 80% of your statements are not ended with a question mark, you're doing it wrong. I've had these types of debates with numerous people. I've been convinced by several of them of things that I previously absolutely opposed, and I've managed to convince them that they were wrong on some things as well. On the things that are more interpretive and deal less with fact-based opinion, we've always managed to agree to disagree, and still respect each other's opinions afterwards.
I had many friends who graduated with BA in CS and related subjects from a respectable state university in the US and all of them seem to have gotten excellent job offers right after graduation from -major- e-comerce and software companies.
It's not 1999 anymore. When I graduated with a CS degree this past spring, I don't know of a SINGLE person in any of my classes who get any offers AT ALL. From ANYONE. As far as I know, immediately after graduation, people either continued at the company they were interning for (if they were smart enough to intern during the school year) or they are now doing computer shit work (like data entry) at some borderline-illegal business run out of the basement of some dilapidated office building... or, like most people, they switched careers.
The mere fact that a multitidue of factories will be set up to outpout PS3 discs is the reason the production cost will be INCRASED. How can you claim expenses going into construction and infastructure will bring down costs?
Secondly, the HD-DVD probably WILL cost about the same... which is exactly why, as I said, I will be sticking to DVDs and SDTVs for MANY years to come, and the biggest reason for this is the cost of entry into this new technology. Before you even start investing into stupendously overpriced players for these new discs (hundreds of dollars versus $30 for a DVD player!), you need to pay as much as a thousand dollars just for a TV! Yes, there are smaller and cheaper HDTVs, but why would we downgrade our size just to keep costs the same? I'm perfectly happy with my 32 inch SDTV, and an equivalent-size (vertically, because that's the only dimension that counts with widescreens) HDTV set probably costs more than a downpayment on a brand new car. And unless you buy an HDTV in the first place, both of these formats are worthless.
So, yes. Go spend your thousands of dollars on all this equipment just to get a marginal increase in video quality (I honestly see nothing less than spectacular with the quality of DVDs). In the meantime, I'll be spending NOTHING and enjoying the same movies at a very high quality on DVD.
The one major point that is always cited when talking about HD-DVD is the fact that manufacturing is going to be cheap. Enjoy your $30 and $40 Blue Ray movies, though. I'll be sticking to DVDs and my fully-functional SDTV set for MANY years to come.
You mean like how Windows XP before and after Service Pack 2 are lumped together (firewall, security, etc)? Or how Windows 95, 98, and XP are lumped together (system stability, BSOD)?
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but it takes a certain combination of arrogance and ignorance to assume that your side is absolutely right, and the other side is absolutely wrong (both in terms of opinions, and how the opinions are presented). Everyone has a valid point to make. All that matters is how the points are interpreted.
What in the hell does this have to do with the sophistication or, as you probably meant, "leetness", of the user? I'm thoroughly familiar and interested in all the latest technology (why would I be reading Slashdot otherwise?). I've known about RSS for a long time. I've tried out several RSS readers. You know what I found? This technology is worthless to me. Sure, you may like it, but I don't. It has nothing to do with sophistication.
Know how I browse the internet? I open up Firefox, and have it start up with just a handful of different tabs: e-mail, CNN.com for the straight news, Fark.com for the bizarre news, and my LiveJournal Friends page, which list every single blog I give a shit about (all my friends who write only for their own friends, not attention-hungry self-important idiots whose opinions are no more useful or knowledgable than a random message board poster). This collection of tabs is enough to start my day, and they're all easy to navigate and load fast (this is the year 2006, I have broadband). When I finish with these tabs, I go off to various different interest sites in other tabs (Slashdot, Digg, IMDb, etc), close out of them when necessary, create new ones, etc. All in all, I get all the information I both want and need in a speedy and efficient (for me) manner. There's absolutely no purpose for me to use RSS.
Frankly, the statistic cited doesn't shock me at all. I know a lot of people who are thoroughly tech and web-savvy, and none of them use RSS either. They have their own reasons, probably. But for me, the fact that my browser can open individual sources of information in tabs eliminates any need for me to load up some extra RSS reader. So don't try to pull this "more sophisticated internet users use RSS" bullshit.
You don't seem to understand the difference between that which is popular with the masses, and that which is popular with educated critics.
This is the reason why viewer-decided award shows are garbage and produce the most bizarre "winners" you can imagine, while critic-handled awards are usually spot on (I'm talking about various Critics' Choice awards, not the Oscars, which doesn't fit in this category).
I find it bizarre that, just because certain people are not fans of the concept of intellectual property as it applies to movie downloads, they automatically assume that someone who is accused of breaking these laws is innocent.
He could be lying, you know. Hell, wouldn't YOU lie about your technical knowledge if you were faced with a $100,000 fine?
You mean a massive, global corporation decided NOT to exploit the consumers through lies, deceit, and borderline-illegal business tactics?! That's crazy! There has to be an ulterior motive.
Giving kids Linux in it's present state to teach them about computers is the equivalent of giving kids Maya software to teach them how to draw.
The only place where modern-day Linux would be appropriate would be in grades 6 and up, meaning that the kindergarten-level artwork is vastly inappropriate and the kids (teenagers) will not accept it without some whining.
Thank you for proving EXACTLY what I was talking about. You attempted to push a debate between the underlying nature of proprietary and open source software development paradigms even FURTHER into a Windows vs Linux flamefest. You even dedicated an additional 4 paragraphs to this cause. Do you even remember what the original topic of discussion here was?
I won't be wasting any more time here on you. Good day, sir.
"It's completely relevent. The fact that IE has been stagnant for years has everything to do with open source vs closed source development processes."
No. That's relevant to the discussion between monopolies vs competition. Closed source development does not lead to monopolies. Microsoft is in it's position because of numerous historical developments, they are the exception. There is only one Microsoft in the world. This is an entirely different debate. There are THOUSANDS of closed source development companies in the world, many of which compete with each other. The great majority of them routinely update their software. They are the majority, and therefore they are far more relevant than the exception that is Microsoft.
There is a downright obsession on Slashdot to turn EVERY argument around on it's head to somehow shove Microsoft right in the middle of it. It annoys me so much. It's impossible to have an intelligent debate here without resorting to childish "Micro$suck" crap.
My whole point was that Open Source has advantages AND disadvantages. It always will. It will always play catch-up in particular areas of software design (as it has been for at least a decade now) and it will always be far, far AHEAD of proprietary software in yet other areas of software design (Stability, efficiency, accuracy, interoperability, i18n, accessibility).
People like you simply baffle me. No, Open Source development will NEVER create software that is, in EVERY WAY, ahead of proprietary software. You know why this is impossible? Because it takes more than programmers to create software. It takes a research budget, graphic departments, focus groups, customer surveys, management, etc. Things that most open source projects lack. They create things that they want (leading to some highly advanced feature sets). When they look at other areas, they become arrogant and simply don't care. ("Who needs flashy GUIs? Command lines are way more efficient.")
Important note: all my points would be entirely irrelevant if said "open source" software was developed in-house by an actual business entity, as I know a few projects already are.
I entirely agree with everything you said... except that I continue to think that a comparison between Firefox and Opera is much more fair than between Firefox and IE6.
"I don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying firefox is better because it's been around longer?"
No. I'm saying that Firefox is better because it had three years of continual development while IE was stagnant. For this reason, the comparison isn't fair (the fact that IE is so widely used is IRRELEVANT to our theoretical discussion on the merits of open source VS proprietary code). This is why I keep saying that the best comparison would be Firefox and Opera. Yes, monopolies are bad. No, this discussion is not about monopolies.
As for your very last point, that is exactly what the article was saying. Open source developers choose to obsess over very particular things while neglecting many other things. Those things that they obsess over result in things like high security, up-to-the-minute advances in underlying computing technologies, etc. Those things that they end up neglecting as a result are the areas where proprietary developers usually thrive and pick up the slack.
A worker's philosophy on life, the universe, and everything matters not when it comes to a product they create. There are only two things worth considering if you are to debate the merits of the finished product:
1) Expertise and professionalism of the worker. (I believe both open source and proprietary developers are equivalent here.)
2) How the workers function as a group (and lead) to deliver their finished product. (For this point, both camps have SIGNIFICANT disadvantages and SIGNIFICANT advantages, and one would be stupid to say that either camp is the end-all be-all of perfection.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the most pathetic thing out of that Q&A, by far, is that they basically admitted that they're basing their entire damn game on that CG movie that they didn't even have a hand in creating!
It just boggles my mind that the sequel to one of the most mediocre PS2 games ever is getting this much hype that we're even discussing this matter at all.
I don't see why people keep comparing the PS3 and the Wii. The fact is, each one is targeting a different audience. You can not only see it in the final product, but the advertising and marketing they're employing to sell it.
There are benefits to targeting the people Sony is. These people would be a lot more likely to spend money on other high-tech Sony gadgets. Nintendo makes nothing but games, so their sole purpose in life is to sell as many "toys" (as you put it) as possible. Sony has bigger things to pay attention to besides their games business.
The real reason Sony is coming under fire isn't entirely that they didn't make an affordable toy, the way Nintendo has. It's not as simple as you think it is.
The average user of the Xbox 360 will understand the difference between watching a form of streaming television content and downloading specific videos when they get a chance to experience both.
In general, I would assume that most people who buy a next-generation console are quite a bit more knowledgeable about technology than you give them credit for.
Dude... Who pissed in your coffee?
Uh, excuse me, but you did more than just ask a question. Your last line was: "Its got to be pretty damned high." That's why that dude jumped on you (rightfully).
I work for one of the top cellphone game developers, and I have a different perspective on this than you guys. It's amazing how many nay-sayers there are here, despite the fact that the cellphone gaming market is one of the most fastest-growing gaming industries today. My company, for example, has operated for several years and in just the last year had increased their profits by several hundred percent. In just the first quarter of THIS year, we've just announced that our revenue is up by another 50%, and right now the sky's the limit.
Yes, many games aren't ideally suited for the cell phone's controls, but considering that many of our games are 3D and have the graphical levels equivalent to a PS1, to say that the games look like "Atari" or whatever some of you guys have been saying is ridiculous. All I'm saying is that citing technical limitations when commenting against the cell phone game industry is ridiculous and shows just how out of touch you are with the technology that is already out there and owned by millions of people RIGHT NOW. Just because you or your friends are stuck with something like a Samsung A620 or an old Razr model doesn't mean that many other people own better devices.
The days of slowly-refreshing LCD displays and pitiful resolutions are over. Yes, those phones still come out, and they're given out like candy to the lowest-paying customers, but many people already have extremely high-performing phones (LG 8100 is one of my favorites). The resolution is very high (considering the size of the screen) and with recent announcements by some graphics hardware manufacturers of increasing their cell phone presense, expect cell phones to become exponentially more powerful in the very near future.
As far as controls go, we're now seeing ergonomically-designed phones like the LG 9800 (look this beauty up) that are the size of normal phones but, when flipped open, have a full QWERTY keyboard and directional pads that work great for gaming. The number of models that work like this is, again, going to increase, just like the hardware performance has been increasing at an astronomical pace in just the last 3 years. So yes, maybe some games aren't suited for SOME current phone models yet, but there are already devices out there that ARE, and the number of these models will only increase.
Now, I grant you that the pricing scheme of "renting" games, and the fact that cell phone carriers do a piss-poor job of marketing the content, stands in the way of wider availability. But to say that there's no market out there (when it's growth has yet to slow down) or that the games suck (read the reviews, many of these games are critically-acclaimed), or that the hardware isn't suited for gaming (look at all the MODERN phones coming out now, and all the phones that will be out in a year or two) is RIDICULOUS and shows nothing but ignorance on your part.
Mobile gaming isn't for everyone, and the best sellers will likely always be quick puzzle games and 2D platformers, but that doesn't mean that millions of people don't want to buy them (they do, and more will in the future), or that these games can't be wonderfully-designed, or that they all have to look like Pong.
Homoeroticism in games does not exist for the purpose of the females. It exists for the men. This is why wrestlers wear skimpy bikini underwear while flexing their muscles, and why action stars of the 80s never wore a shirt to combat (Rocky, Rambo, etc). They flex their oiled muscles for adolescent boys, who consider these body types to be role models for themselves. Yes, it's homoeroticism. No, it's not eye-candy for girls. I'm sure there are books written on this subject if you take a few minutes to search through Amazon.com.
The internet is a HORRIBLE setting for discussion. It's not real-time. Each individual writes several paragraphs at a time, compounding on errors and incorrect assumptions to present their point of view, making it hard for the opponent to pick it apart and debate the issue point by point. And even when someone tries to do just that, their opponent will INVARIABLY and ALWAYS ignore at least 80% of the points being disputed and focus on just one, making for an incredibly frustrating "conversation".
Another horrible setting for discussion is television. Most people who debate on television are not necessarily well-versed in their supposed areas of expertise (Bill O'Reilly has no form of political or historical education or experience whatsoever that is in any way beyond that of an average college graduate). The reason these people are debating on television is because they're telegenic, confrontational, witty, and entertaining. Their opinions frequently do not make any sense for this reason: They lack the understanding of the topic to form educated conclusions. It's just as bad when newspaper columnists are brought in to debate on television. These people have degrees in either English or Journalism. They know how to write extremely well, but their opinions are often far less informed than those who specifically specialize in social studies, history, political science, or psychology.
I've noticed that the best way, by far, to have a debate is to do it one on one, without an audience to play to, and specifically using the Socratic Method. Ask what the other person believes in, ask them to back it up, ask them to illustration how the evidence and the conclusion are connected, and top it all off, ask them why your OWN opinion doesn't match. Don't tell them, ASK them. Always ask. If 80% of your statements are not ended with a question mark, you're doing it wrong. I've had these types of debates with numerous people. I've been convinced by several of them of things that I previously absolutely opposed, and I've managed to convince them that they were wrong on some things as well. On the things that are more interpretive and deal less with fact-based opinion, we've always managed to agree to disagree, and still respect each other's opinions afterwards.
I say we go a step further. We should support President McKinley, grow handlebar mustaches, and crack the heads of the filthy Irish!
I had many friends who graduated with BA in CS and related subjects from a respectable state university in the US and all of them seem to have gotten excellent job offers right after graduation from -major- e-comerce and software companies.
It's not 1999 anymore. When I graduated with a CS degree this past spring, I don't know of a SINGLE person in any of my classes who get any offers AT ALL. From ANYONE. As far as I know, immediately after graduation, people either continued at the company they were interning for (if they were smart enough to intern during the school year) or they are now doing computer shit work (like data entry) at some borderline-illegal business run out of the basement of some dilapidated office building... or, like most people, they switched careers.
You make several ludicrous points:
The mere fact that a multitidue of factories will be set up to outpout PS3 discs is the reason the production cost will be INCRASED. How can you claim expenses going into construction and infastructure will bring down costs?
Secondly, the HD-DVD probably WILL cost about the same... which is exactly why, as I said, I will be sticking to DVDs and SDTVs for MANY years to come, and the biggest reason for this is the cost of entry into this new technology. Before you even start investing into stupendously overpriced players for these new discs (hundreds of dollars versus $30 for a DVD player!), you need to pay as much as a thousand dollars just for a TV! Yes, there are smaller and cheaper HDTVs, but why would we downgrade our size just to keep costs the same? I'm perfectly happy with my 32 inch SDTV, and an equivalent-size (vertically, because that's the only dimension that counts with widescreens) HDTV set probably costs more than a downpayment on a brand new car. And unless you buy an HDTV in the first place, both of these formats are worthless.
So, yes. Go spend your thousands of dollars on all this equipment just to get a marginal increase in video quality (I honestly see nothing less than spectacular with the quality of DVDs). In the meantime, I'll be spending NOTHING and enjoying the same movies at a very high quality on DVD.
The one major point that is always cited when talking about HD-DVD is the fact that manufacturing is going to be cheap. Enjoy your $30 and $40 Blue Ray movies, though. I'll be sticking to DVDs and my fully-functional SDTV set for MANY years to come.
You mean like how Windows XP before and after Service Pack 2 are lumped together (firewall, security, etc)? Or how Windows 95, 98, and XP are lumped together (system stability, BSOD)?
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but it takes a certain combination of arrogance and ignorance to assume that your side is absolutely right, and the other side is absolutely wrong (both in terms of opinions, and how the opinions are presented). Everyone has a valid point to make. All that matters is how the points are interpreted.
What in the hell does this have to do with the sophistication or, as you probably meant, "leetness", of the user? I'm thoroughly familiar and interested in all the latest technology (why would I be reading Slashdot otherwise?). I've known about RSS for a long time. I've tried out several RSS readers. You know what I found? This technology is worthless to me. Sure, you may like it, but I don't. It has nothing to do with sophistication.
Know how I browse the internet? I open up Firefox, and have it start up with just a handful of different tabs: e-mail, CNN.com for the straight news, Fark.com for the bizarre news, and my LiveJournal Friends page, which list every single blog I give a shit about (all my friends who write only for their own friends, not attention-hungry self-important idiots whose opinions are no more useful or knowledgable than a random message board poster). This collection of tabs is enough to start my day, and they're all easy to navigate and load fast (this is the year 2006, I have broadband). When I finish with these tabs, I go off to various different interest sites in other tabs (Slashdot, Digg, IMDb, etc), close out of them when necessary, create new ones, etc. All in all, I get all the information I both want and need in a speedy and efficient (for me) manner. There's absolutely no purpose for me to use RSS.
Frankly, the statistic cited doesn't shock me at all. I know a lot of people who are thoroughly tech and web-savvy, and none of them use RSS either. They have their own reasons, probably. But for me, the fact that my browser can open individual sources of information in tabs eliminates any need for me to load up some extra RSS reader. So don't try to pull this "more sophisticated internet users use RSS" bullshit.
You don't seem to understand the difference between that which is popular with the masses, and that which is popular with educated critics.
This is the reason why viewer-decided award shows are garbage and produce the most bizarre "winners" you can imagine, while critic-handled awards are usually spot on (I'm talking about various Critics' Choice awards, not the Oscars, which doesn't fit in this category).
I find it bizarre that, just because certain people are not fans of the concept of intellectual property as it applies to movie downloads, they automatically assume that someone who is accused of breaking these laws is innocent.
He could be lying, you know. Hell, wouldn't YOU lie about your technical knowledge if you were faced with a $100,000 fine?
"The man was dead when I got there, I swear!"
You mean a massive, global corporation decided NOT to exploit the consumers through lies, deceit, and borderline-illegal business tactics?! That's crazy! There has to be an ulterior motive.
Giving kids Linux in it's present state to teach them about computers is the equivalent of giving kids Maya software to teach them how to draw.
The only place where modern-day Linux would be appropriate would be in grades 6 and up, meaning that the kindergarten-level artwork is vastly inappropriate and the kids (teenagers) will not accept it without some whining.
I found your description far more accurate that the grandparent's long-winded hypefest, which seemed to be on par with that company's PR machine.
Thank you for proving EXACTLY what I was talking about. You attempted to push a debate between the underlying nature of proprietary and open source software development paradigms even FURTHER into a Windows vs Linux flamefest. You even dedicated an additional 4 paragraphs to this cause. Do you even remember what the original topic of discussion here was?
I won't be wasting any more time here on you. Good day, sir.
"It's completely relevent. The fact that IE has been stagnant for years has everything to do with open source vs closed source development processes."
No. That's relevant to the discussion between monopolies vs competition. Closed source development does not lead to monopolies. Microsoft is in it's position because of numerous historical developments, they are the exception. There is only one Microsoft in the world. This is an entirely different debate. There are THOUSANDS of closed source development companies in the world, many of which compete with each other. The great majority of them routinely update their software. They are the majority, and therefore they are far more relevant than the exception that is Microsoft.
There is a downright obsession on Slashdot to turn EVERY argument around on it's head to somehow shove Microsoft right in the middle of it. It annoys me so much. It's impossible to have an intelligent debate here without resorting to childish "Micro$suck" crap.
My whole point was that Open Source has advantages AND disadvantages. It always will. It will always play catch-up in particular areas of software design (as it has been for at least a decade now) and it will always be far, far AHEAD of proprietary software in yet other areas of software design (Stability, efficiency, accuracy, interoperability, i18n, accessibility).
People like you simply baffle me. No, Open Source development will NEVER create software that is, in EVERY WAY, ahead of proprietary software. You know why this is impossible? Because it takes more than programmers to create software. It takes a research budget, graphic departments, focus groups, customer surveys, management, etc. Things that most open source projects lack. They create things that they want (leading to some highly advanced feature sets). When they look at other areas, they become arrogant and simply don't care. ("Who needs flashy GUIs? Command lines are way more efficient.")
Important note: all my points would be entirely irrelevant if said "open source" software was developed in-house by an actual business entity, as I know a few projects already are.
I entirely agree with everything you said... except that I continue to think that a comparison between Firefox and Opera is much more fair than between Firefox and IE6.
"I don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying firefox is better because it's been around longer?"
No. I'm saying that Firefox is better because it had three years of continual development while IE was stagnant. For this reason, the comparison isn't fair (the fact that IE is so widely used is IRRELEVANT to our theoretical discussion on the merits of open source VS proprietary code). This is why I keep saying that the best comparison would be Firefox and Opera. Yes, monopolies are bad. No, this discussion is not about monopolies.
As for your very last point, that is exactly what the article was saying. Open source developers choose to obsess over very particular things while neglecting many other things. Those things that they obsess over result in things like high security, up-to-the-minute advances in underlying computing technologies, etc. Those things that they end up neglecting as a result are the areas where proprietary developers usually thrive and pick up the slack.
A worker's philosophy on life, the universe, and everything matters not when it comes to a product they create. There are only two things worth considering if you are to debate the merits of the finished product:
1) Expertise and professionalism of the worker. (I believe both open source and proprietary developers are equivalent here.)
2) How the workers function as a group (and lead) to deliver their finished product. (For this point, both camps have SIGNIFICANT disadvantages and SIGNIFICANT advantages, and one would be stupid to say that either camp is the end-all be-all of perfection.)