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] gmailcom> 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

Warp wrote:
> 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.

He's being sarcastic for taking so long to fix the bug.  A stable bug. :)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:16:44 -0400, Warp wrote:

> 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.

Same here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:24:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 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.

The thing that's superior about OSS over proprietary is that because the 
code is released, *if* you have the skills, you can fix it yourself.  
I'll grant that's a big "if".

You can't do that (by definition) with closed-source software.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The thing that's superior about OSS over proprietary is that because the 
> code is released, *if* you have the skills, you can fix it yourself.  
> I'll grant that's a big "if".

  There are other advantages too, mainly related to trustworthiness.
Because the source code is open for anyone to examine, it's less likely
that it will contain undocumented parts which do something the user might
not want it to do, such as compromising his privacy without his consent.
Some proprietary software have got into big controversies because of "phoning
home" without the user's consent or knowledge. OSS is enormously less likely
to contain this kind of code because it's so much easier for people to notice.

  Another advantage is that OSS is often developed by several independent
parties which are not driving their own personal gain with the project,
something that is the rule with proprietary commercial software. OSS is
user-oriented, doing what benefits the users the most. The primary goal
of proprietary software is to benefit the company the most. In some cases
this means putting features and restrictions which benefit the company at
the cost of the users. This is the more likely the more of a monopoly
status the company has. (Think of draconian DRM measures, for instance.
Users don't want nor benefit from DRM, only companies benefit from it,
but users have to swallow DRM because of big company monopolies. This would
*never* happen with OSS.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> The thing that's superior about OSS over proprietary is that because the 
> code is released, *if* you have the skills, you can fix it yourself.  
> I'll grant that's a big "if".
> 
> You can't do that (by definition) with closed-source software.

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.

For example... I know of at least half a dozen packages which can take a 
simple algebraic formula and simplify it, possibly rearrange it, and 
maybe graph it in 2D or 3D. I know of exactly *one* package which can 
symbolically expand, factorise and compute quotients of expressions, 
symbolically integrate and differentiate, symbolically solve algebraic 
equations, differential equations, difference equations, integral 
equations, and simulateous systems of equations, graph implicit and 
parametric equations in arbitrary dimensions with configurable 
colouring, do fast numeric work, do number-theoretic stuff like compute 
Euler's phi or the Reimann zeta, take the Fourier, Laplace or 
Z-transform of equations or data, compute statistics such as [arithmetic 
/ geometric / harmonic] mean, varience, standard deviation, correlation, 
chi-squared tests, compute a specified distribution... would you like me 
to continue?

There are OSS packages that do symbolic calculations. And then there's 
Mathematica. Hypothetically, you can take an OSS package and "fix" it to 
be Mathematica. But unless you have a few million dollars to invest in 
R&D... good luck with that one. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   There are other advantages too, mainly related to trustworthiness.
> Because the source code is open for anyone to examine, it's less likely
> that it will contain undocumented parts which do something the user might
> not want it to do, such as compromising his privacy without his consent.

Agreed.

>   Another advantage is that OSS is often developed by several independent
> parties which are not driving their own personal gain with the project,
> something that is the rule with proprietary commercial software. OSS is
> user-oriented, doing what benefits the users the most.

Not entirely true.

Counter-example: http://www.xkcd.com/619/

OSS tends to be developer-oriented, not customer-oriented. Granted, that 
can be much better than company-oriented though. ;-) Since the 
developers are users too, they aren't going to deliberately try to screw 
themselves...

[Insert geek masterbation joke here.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> For example... I know of at least half a dozen packages which can take a 
> simple algebraic formula and simplify it, possibly rearrange it, and 
> maybe graph it in 2D or 3D. I know of exactly *one* package which can 
> symbolically expand, factorise and compute quotients of expressions, 
[...]

  That's maybe somewhat of a niche market.

  Maybe a better example is video editing: There is good video editing
software out there, and there is open source video editing software out
there. Exclusive "and".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:16:51 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> There are OSS packages that do symbolic calculations. And then there's
> Mathematica. Hypothetically, you can take an OSS package and "fix" it to
> be Mathematica. But unless you have a few million dollars to invest in
> R&D... good luck with that one. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:04:14 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   There are other advantages too, mainly related to trustworthiness.

Absolutely, I just mentioned the first that came to mind, that's 
certainly not the only one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   I don't understand the subject.
> 
> I get that a lot on the Internet. For example...
> 
> http://xkcd.com/535/
> 
> ....like, WTF?
> 

LOL You are a card. :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de 
news:4ada314d@news.povray.org...
>  Another advantage is that OSS is often developed by several independent
> parties which are not driving their own personal gain with the project,
> something that is the rule with proprietary commercial software. OSS is
> user-oriented, doing what benefits the users the most.

All of this works in two situations: when said users happen to be developers 
themselves and the OSS project is basically targeted to other developers 
(i.e. developers creating developer tools), and when the OSS project has 
solid corporate backing (e.g. Mozilla being funded by search royalties 
through Google) that provides money for quality assessment, usability 
testing, documentation and such. The best known and real world tested OSS 
projects are often in both categories, actually.
In other situations, the OSS model of development does not shine so 
brightly, when it shines at all. That's IMHO, but I just tried to find OSS 
replacements for several costly proprietary software and the results were 
not convincing, to say the least (see also Andrew's post). Yeah, if you're 
an academic or a geek with lots of free time the replacements are nice and 
sort of fun, but when you're a pro looking for tools that you can actually 
use, less so.

I understand that many IT folks love OSS, but that's because the OSS model 
caters for this particular niche and does indeed provide great tools for 
them (and toys: if you're a IT person dabbling with graphics, the GIMP is 
good enough and you get to play with the code ; if you're a graphics pro, 
no, not really, thanks, you'd rather pay the Adobe tax ; if you're neither, 
some cheap proprietary entry-level photo editor with an interface that's 
actually usable will do). Those of us who are not working (full time) in IT 
see the problem differently.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In other situations, the OSS model of development does not shine so 
> brightly, when it shines at all. That's IMHO, but I just tried to find OSS 
> replacements for several costly proprietary software and the results were 
> not convincing, to say the least (see also Andrew's post).

  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.

  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).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Maybe a better example is video editing: There is good video editing
> software out there, and there is open source video editing software out
> there. Exclusive "and".

And the ones around don't follow *either* sane UI guidelines or Unix
philosophy.

I have yet to see a good open source graphical video editor. And I have yet
to see a *command-line* tool that can take two video files and produce an
output video that is a transition between the inputs. (Raw uncompressed
video, of course; encoding would be done by piping to/from ffmpeg.)

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de 
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.". This only true when target users are developers. When 
target users are not developers, funky stuff happens a la GIMP, unless 
there's a corporate backer to push things in the right direction. And in 
many situations, there's no OSS version at all if there's no interest in 
that (from an OSS developer's perspective).

>  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).

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 ;)

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> I understand that many IT folks love OSS, but that's because the OSS 
> model caters for this particular niche and does indeed provide great 
> tools for them (and toys: if you're a IT person dabbling with graphics, 
> the GIMP is good enough and you get to play with the code ; if you're a 
> graphics pro, no, not really, thanks, you'd rather pay the Adobe tax ; 
> if you're neither, some cheap proprietary entry-level photo editor with 
> an interface that's actually usable will do). Those of us who are not 
> working (full time) in IT see the problem differently.

This guy is a pro:

http://blogdodesenhador.blogspot.com/
http://lambiek.net/artists/c/couto_mozart.htm

He seems to have a passion for the Gimp and the Genius MousePen tablet, 
though.  He seems to have far more needs than simple photo editing too.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2009 1:13 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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


Compare:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Microsoft+buggy&fp=92ba666181073553
(2,270,000 ghits)

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22open+source%22+buggy&fp=92ba666181073553
(951,000 ghits)

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2009 4:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:24:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 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.
>
> The thing that's superior about OSS over proprietary is that because the
> code is released, *if* you have the skills, you can fix it yourself.
> I'll grant that's a big "if".
>
> You can't do that (by definition) with closed-source software.
>
> Jim

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.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

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.

I know that OSS devs derive amusement to no end when this happens.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

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?

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:28:33 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> On 10/17/2009 1:13 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 
> Compare:
> 
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Microsoft+buggy&fp=92ba666181073553
> (2,270,000 ghits)
> 
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22open+source%22
+buggy&fp=92ba666181073553
> (951,000 ghits)

It's still not clear to me what your point is.  Can you spell it out 
clearly for us?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

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

>> 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

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] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de 
> 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

On 10/18/09 14:38, Warp wrote:
>> 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.

	I can somewhat sympathize with his viewpoint. Sometimes the cost of 
using OSS isn't apparent after merely a few days. It could be months 
after it's been adopted. Usually fixing the problems requires one of 
your employees to spend time working on fixing it. And sometimes the 
cumulative time spent on such "fixes" is more than if they had just paid 
for reliable support (which many OSS projects don't offer). Employee 
time is expensive (in terms of money).

-- 
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Post a reply to this message