 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> He seems to be saying "see, see? OSS isn't always stable".
I don't see how a bug report makes something unstable. It makes something
buggy, but sometimes (as MS has shown) keeping something buggy and stable is
better than unstable with fewer bugs.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> You can't do that (by definition) with closed-source software.
That's not really true. There are plenty of ways of fixing software without
the source. They're a PITA, yes, but it can be done.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:52:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> He seems to be saying "see, see? OSS isn't always stable".
>
> I don't see how a bug report makes something unstable. It makes
> something buggy, but sometimes (as MS has shown) keeping something buggy
> and stable is better than unstable with fewer bugs.
Well, yeah, I don't either. I wish he'd clearly state his point.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:39:08 +0100, Orchid XP v8 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?
>
> Ah yes...
>
> Why doesn't XXX work properly?
>
> "It's a known bug. Patches welcome."
That doesn't mean the developer is not working on it and hoping someone
else will fix it. It generally means "I know it's a bug and will get
around to fixing it at some point, but there are higher priority things
for me to work on. If you want to submit a patch, though, you're welcome
to do so".
Do that with closed-source software. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:54:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You can't do that (by definition) with closed-source software.
>
> That's not really true. There are plenty of ways of fixing software
> without the source. They're a PITA, yes, but it can be done.
Not really saying it's impossible, but you have to really know how the
software works in order to write a binary-only patch. But sure, hackers
have been doing that for years to remove copy protection from games (for
example).
But many programmers don't even know how to do that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:18:04 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla
Yay, you submitted bugs. Still not sure what point you're trying to
make.....or are you just trolling the OSS people here? Because if you
are, I'll happily ignore your posts.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> news:4ada536f@news.povray.org...
> > I did not touch the subject of *quality* in my post, nor do I in any way
> > claim that OSS would be in part with the best commercial software in many
> > fields.
> I was addressing the claim that "OSS is user-oriented, doing what benefits
> the users the most.".
Targetting your users rather than your own company doesn't say anything
about the quality of the software.
> To be frank, I have lost my time trying OSS. I push OSS when it's good, but
> just too much of the stuff is alpha quality and in some cases I wished that
> OSS folks had been more honest in stating that they were doing it for fun
> without the pretense of creating a useful and working product. I'm wiser
> now. At least marketing folks are paid to lie ;)
Linux (or sometimes a BSD variant) and Apache are used in tons of web
servers out there (in fact, I think they are the majority). People can
have differing opinions about the quality of the Linux/Apache combo, but
you can't deny that many people have found it a working (and *free*)
solution.
That's just one example.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 10/17/2009 7:29 PM, Warp wrote:
> > There is, however, another advantage I can think of: With OSS you not only
> > can "try before you buy", but you can skip the latter part of that altogether.
> > So it's not like you are losing something by trying OSS (except perhaps a bit
> > of time).
> Not true if time itself is money. I.e. you may "lose" some by wasting
> hours/days/weeks on OSS software that doesn't end up working.
How much more do you lose by having to pay software licenses?
You can't claim that trying an OSS for a few days costs more than eg.
buying a Windows license for 10 servers, for instance.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Oh, and I forgot these:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla
So open source software often contains bugs. What shocking news! I had
no idea.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
