Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th May 2008 15:15 UTC, submitted by Shlomi Fish
Permalink for comment 313148
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-06
"
Only in the open source world, where it seems that people are used to being stuck with a buttload of alpha/beta-quality software on Sourceforge does this make absolutely any sense.
"
yeah, because software from outside the FOSS world has never been known to be beta quality at time of purchase has it.
Please, the FOSS types are nuts because they accept a few bugs as a tradeoff for more flexible software without mysteries. The non-FOSS types are nuts because they accept steaming turd nutty quality software (How's Vista doing these days?) like it was handed down on two stones. All of it is human written software so it's all buggy crap; The FOSS types just discuss it openly instead of hiding behind closed doors fo fear of marketing image.
I do like your list of attributes though. portable, modular, customizable configuration.. I have to reread the article but I think your much closer to what makes software of high quality though I'd add peer reviewable source code as a bonus (but not a deal breaker if code quality doesn't suffer).
Edited 2008-05-06 18:36 UTC