"Which parameters make software applications high-quality? And which parameters or methods, while desirable, are not directly 'quality'?" This is the question the author of this article asks himself. Most of his 'parameters' make a lot of sense, but be aware that the article is about what makes an open source program high quality, and not programs in general. This important bit is stated in the one-sentence 'abstract'.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-13
Nor does not having source code available mean that the program is not high quality either. IMHO, this article has a strong open source bias, and should be renamed to: "What Makes Open Source Software High-Quality?'
A high quality piece of software should 'mostly' function correctly.. are you f**king kidding me? 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. The only time I would ever consider using something that only works most of the time is when there's absolutely no alternatives available. If that means I have to pay $ for something, then so be it.
A few more items that the article doesn't touch on:
- Portability. I agree with this, but not hte way the author intended. Software should be portable enough so that you can copy it to a USB thumb drive, re-install the OS, copy it back to the hard drive and have it run, or just run it off the thumb drive. Anything that barfs DLL/library files all over the system is a loser, IMHO.
- Modular. If you have a program that does several different things that are separate from each other (such as a web browser that does email as well), I should be able to tell the program not to load up in memory the parts I don't use, or to only load it when needed.
- Ease of use. This excludes any app where I have to memorize shortcut keys right from the start to get anything done. It's cool to have them, but at least give me a menu to work with until I learn my way around. Those who don't need such a thing should be free to turn it off (see above point).
- Stable. This shouldn't need any explanation.
- Customizable enough to keep power users happy, but keep those options just far enough out of reach so that new users who aren't looking for them don't get overwhelmed.
Member since:2006-02-15
Nor does not having source code available mean that the program is not high quality either. IMHO, this article has a strong open source bias, and should be renamed to: "What Makes Open Source Software High-Quality?'
I was just thinking about this as I'm skimming through the article. It is very heavily open-source biased. And there are things that are just rather stupid, IMHO. Like for example, an average user does not need access to the sources nor will she care about them, average user won't be compiling the stuff and so on. So, is it almost like the author is talking about what is high-quality open-source software with a developer in mind, not from general usability point from the end-user point of view.
So, my list of things in his list that DO NOT make software high-quality:
* The Source is Available, Preferably under a Usable Licence: - this is useful only for developers, and it doesn't mean the software is any good.
* The Software is Easy to Compile, Deploy and Install: - Look above. I've installed both pretty poor apps and pretty good apps both with exactly the same routine "./configure && make && make install". And this is again only useful for packagers or developers.
* The Software Has Packages for Most Common Distributions: - This has nothing to do with the quality of the software rather than the distributions packagers bothering to include the software. This point also assumes you are using an OS which comes in multiple distributions.
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
RE[2]: "The Source is Available..."
Member since:2005-10-10
Hi chris_dk!
Sure, the availability source by itself does not guarantee the software is high-quality. And a lot of high-quality software is binary only or even proprietary.
What I meant to say is that availability of the source and the more liberal its licence is, contribute to the quality of the software. That's because the source allows improvement (enhancements, bug fixes, etc.), studying it to find out how to do things, integration into other FOSS software (including possibly GPL one), usage in "proprietary" contexts (if BSDL or LGPL, etc.), etc. etc.
While having a sub-optimal source licence, won't absolutely prevent your software from being high-quality, having a liberal one will increase the quality a lot.
As I noted below, what I've given are various parameters (or criteria) not a "Must have" checklist.
I hope I made myself clear.
"In the first episode of Microsoft's new film series 'On the Whiteboard', Editor Pamela Woon chats with two-time Oscar winner Randy Thom about the (often underestimated) importance of sound in human-technology interactions. Thom, the lead sound designer at Skywalker Ranch who worked on films such as The Incredibles, Castaway and Forrest Gump, says that people rarely consider the significance of those signature sounds that come from their trusty devices, whether it be a cell phone, a computer or a tablet."
"Microsoft has sensationally abandoned its controversial plans to restrict the sharing of XBox One games, and has also removed daily online authentication requirements for its forthcoming console", reports The Guardian. They had no choice. Still a good move."A snippet of code in the Steam digital distribution platform has revealed that Valve may be planning to let users easily share their games with friends in the future. The Verge has verified the code's authenticity, which was originally spotted by a member of the NeoGAF gaming forum; the code references a 'shared game library' and a notification that would alert a user when their games are currently in use by a borrower." This would change the, uh, game.
Official Apple statement on PRISM and privacy: "Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it." This is basically Apple re-publishing their earlier statement in a more official manner. You either believe it, or you don't.
The open source Contiki operating system and its commercial Thingsquare distribution are making strides towards the connected home. According to a Computerworld article, a new LED light bulb manufacturer is putting small computers into their light bulbs. Each computer runs the Contiki OS, which gives each bulb an IP address and allows them to be controlled with a smartphone application. To connect the bulbs to the application, the bulbs use both Wi-Fi and the much lower power IEEE 802.15.4 mesh technology.
"Google asked the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday to ease long-standing gag orders over data requests it makes, arguing that the company has a constitutional right to speak about information it's forced to give the government. The legal filing, which cites the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, is the latest move by the California-based tech giant to protect its reputation in the aftermath of news reports about sweeping National Security Agency surveillance of Internet traffic." Draining the ditch after the cow has drowned in it."I can't find one person who has been using the Nexus 7 for an extended period of time, and hasn't seen a massive downgrade in performance. Just what kind of downgrade are we talking here? I cannot pick up my Nexus 7 without experiencing problems like a lag of ten seconds, or more, just to rotate the display; touches refusing to acknowledged; stuttering notification panel actions; and unresponsive apps." Fully and utterly agreed. My Nexus 7 was blazing-fast and awesome for a few months, and at some point, it just started sucking. Just like that. I've tried loads of ROMs, and nothing helps.A new release of the hobby operating system MenuetOS! The release notes are a bit non-descript, but you'll have to take what you can get: "updates and improvements (picview, httpc, ehci, ...)"."The Internet is one of the most transformative technologies of our lifetimes. But for 2 out of every 3 people on earth, a fast, affordable Internet connection is still out of reach. And this is far from being a solved problem. There are many terrestrial challenges to Internet connectivity - jungles, archipelagos, mountains. There are also major cost challenges. Right now, for example, in most of the countries in the southern hemisphere, the cost of an Internet connection is more than a month's income. Solving these problems isn't simply a question of time: it requires looking at the problem of access from new angles. So today we're unveiling our latest moonshot from Google[x]: balloon-powered Internet access." Insane."MineAssemble is a tiny bootable Minecraft clone written partly in x86 assembly. I made it first and foremost because a university assignment required me to implement a game in assembly for a computer systems course. Because I had never implemented anything more complex than a 'Hello World' bootloader before, I decided I wanted to learn about writing my own kernel code at the same time. Note that the goal of this project was not to write highly efficient hand-optimized assembly code, but rather to have fun and write code that balances readability and speed. This is primarily accomplished by proper commenting and consistent code structuring." Just cool.
Member since:
2005-07-12
The Source is Available, Preferably under a Usable Licence
Hmm, I find that argument weird. Just because the source is available does not mean that the end product is high-quality. It can mean that but it is an absolute truth.