 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:30:56 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> One of the disadvantages is that developers feel bugs are not as
> important because they expect that someone *with* the skills will
> eventually come along and fix it.
Got some data to back up that assertion? Or is that what you've been
trying to post and say?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:40:23 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> On 10/17/2009 6:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Not really a case of "the exception proves the rule", though. There's
>> plenty of decent OSS software out there that competes with proprietary
>> software and does very well.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Who buys this "other" software though? End users, or companies and
> people within the IT field?
The other OSS software that I cited? Nobody needs to, it's OSS.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Eero Ahonen
Subject: Re: Open source software is always stable
Date: 18 Oct 2009 02:11:18
Message: <4adab186@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Not entirely true.
>
> Counter-example: http://www.xkcd.com/619/
Well yes, I true example of crappy closed-source application (Flash)
really does fit here ;).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/17/2009 12:25 AM, SharkD wrote:
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
>
>
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23705&p=108062#p108062
>
>
>
>
> Mike
Oh, and I forgot these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> On the other hand, the number of people working on OSS software is
> usually determined by how "interesting" it is, whereas for CSS software
> it's determined by how much money the company has. If they have a
> crapload of money, they can quite possibly produce a better product than
> an OSS community could come up with, because they can just *hire* enough
> manpower to get the job done.
>
There's also the part where you don't need to do quality code, when you
have enough money, big enough market share and not enough competition
(remember Windows ME?). So the amount of money that CSS publisher has
isn't purely indication of how good the code/software is.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
>
>
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23705&p=108062#p108062
>
When it comes to OOo, this is my favourite:
http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/08/15/bohrbugs-openoffice-org-wont-print-on-tuesdays/
> Mike
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, the number of people working on OSS software is
>> usually determined by how "interesting" it is, whereas for CSS software
>> it's determined by how much money the company has. If they have a
>> crapload of money, they can quite possibly produce a better product than
>> an OSS community could come up with, because they can just *hire* enough
>> manpower to get the job done.
>>
>
> There's also the part where you don't need to do quality code, when you
> have enough money, big enough market share and not enough competition
> (remember Windows ME?). So the amount of money that CSS publisher has
> isn't purely indication of how good the code/software is.
Oh, sure, it also depends on what their movites are BTW. If they're
*trying* to make a good product, they may have the means to do it very
well. But, as Warp pointed out, sometimes they have other priorities...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Open source software is always stable
Date: 18 Oct 2009 05:39:06
Message: <4adae23a@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One of the disadvantages is that developers feel bugs are not as
>> important because they expect that someone *with* the skills will
>> eventually come along and fix it.
>
> Got some data to back up that assertion? Or is that what you've been
> trying to post and say?
Ah yes...
Why doesn't XXX work properly?
"It's a known bug. Patches welcome."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I get that a lot on the Internet. For example...
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/535/
>>
>> ....like, WTF?
>>
>
> LOL You are a card. :)
Is that something like a bambino?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Oh, sure, it also depends on what their movites are BTW. If they're
> *trying* to make a good product, they may have the means to do it very
> well. But, as Warp pointed out, sometimes they have other priorities...
>
Most of the time they do have other priorities. For a commercial firm
the no.1 priority is to make money for the owner(s), always. Quality
usually is available when it supports making money to the owner(s).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
