 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:25:31 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> Open source software is always stable
Um, yeah. What's your point? Nobody ever claimed it was *always*
stable, by its very nature, OSS is available in alpha and beta form. No
guarantees about stability in any software.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
It's true. I seem to recall a discussion here about it earlier, probably by the
time you filed the bug.
I would have not noticed it, as I tend to use F2 to edit cells in loco. No such
bug there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't understand the subject.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:43:37 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I don't understand the subject.
He seems to be saying "see, see? OSS isn't always stable".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't understand the subject.
I get that a lot on the Internet. For example...
http://xkcd.com/535/
...like, WTF?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:43:37 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > I don't understand the subject.
> He seems to be saying "see, see? OSS isn't always stable".
I think that's the first time I have ever seen anybody claiming (or
insinuating that somebody has claimed) that OSS is always stable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I don't understand the subject.
> I get that a lot on the Internet. For example...
My sentence was rhetorical, not literal. (If you want a literal translation,
it's: "Why are you saying that some people claim that OSS is always stable?
I have never heard anyone making such a claim.")
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> My sentence was rhetorical, not literal. (If you want a literal translation,
> it's: "Why are you saying that some people claim that OSS is always stable?
> I have never heard anyone making such a claim.")
I've heard lots of people try to claim directly or indirectly that OSS
is somehow automatically inherantly superior to proprietry software just
because it's OSS. Which, IMHO, is untrue.
For example, I've written libraries and released the source code. You
could claim that those libraries are therefore "open-source". So does
that mean they're better than any possible proprietry library? Uh... I
don't think so. :-/
I more valid claim would be that the OSS development model has several
advantages that the closed-source model doesn't have. That doesn't
automatically translate into a superior end-product though. (And it also
quietly ignores the fact that closed-source has advantages that
open-source doesn't have too...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I've heard lots of people try to claim directly or indirectly that OSS
> is somehow automatically inherantly superior to proprietry software just
> because it's OSS. Which, IMHO, is untrue.
With superiority they don't necessarily mean stability. There are other
forms of superiority as well.
> For example, I've written libraries and released the source code. You
> could claim that those libraries are therefore "open-source". So does
> that mean they're better than any possible proprietry library? Uh... I
> don't think so. :-/
Better in what respect? There is more than one measurement by which one
can compare software.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
