Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Aug 2012 00:00 UTC
Permalink for comment 529831
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 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-11-23
It's almost like having Windows 95 or Mac OS 8 open sourced today. No real benefit, just a pile of closed, outdated and buggy source. Open source / free software paradigm is not a magic bullet to rescue dead projects. You can't expect your closed source project will be developed at no cost by others right after you have no more money to develop it / there is no real interrest in it, etc.
I actually find it quite pathetic, though it depends on the reasons this code was made open.
This can only have a sentimental value, not a real one. You could try to build on top of that code, but it would probobly take rediculous amount of hours to make use of that anyway.
Free software is about real benefit to other people: this doesn't bring any real benefit. Open source is all about the method: and here it does apply. But so what? does it even have any sense?
I'm sorry to be so critical, but I just can't see good intentions there.