Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 24th Nov 2012 17:52 UTC
Permalink for comment 543198
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 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-24
>at the end the quality of programmer is what makes the difference.
Yes, I fully agree with this viewpoint. Just in the closed world this quality dies with programmer, but in the open world it lives forever in publicly available well-written source code or in design principles for which no one will sue anyone else.
"The open" does not mean "open source" always - it is the freedom of choice. You choose proprietary software, if it fits your needs. And you choose free software, where it performs better. And the interoperability and interchangeability is by-design.
Even some proprietary companies live such a way. They just do better than others, and don't sue anyone, and don't restrict user's freedom for choice, because they are sure that their products are awesome, and user will choose their products nevertheless. The programmers actively interoperate with users and community, and they are just proud of their work and work even better.