Linked by Stefan Michalowski, M. Sc. on Thu 19th Aug 2004 08:27 UTC
Permalink for comment
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



the open source model should work better than the MS model does, but the author compares the reality of MS to some sort of idealized potential for open source.
Yes, since the source code is open, developers should be able to look at all source to ensure compatibility. But nothing like that ever happens. Are you supposed to read source code to check for any compatiblity problems in every version of linux over, what, the last 3 years? What a PITA.
The real difference between the MS approach and the Linux non-approach is that the OS vendor is taking it upon themselves to actively seek out potential problems and come up with solutions. With Linux, it's a free for all (as in beer, speech, and not worth paying for)