To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
In a lot of cases though, the FOSS crowd doesn't have a choice.
Haha, don't know... don't use it. There's a lot of bad software out there, both open source and not. The difference is that most of the 'non-FOSS' crowd will use a piece of software whether it's open source or not. Just because we use propietary apps doesn't mean we're anti-FOSS. This is not a pro-choice/pro-life kind of thing. It's a 'use the best tool for the job' kind of thing
oh absolutely, there's enough examples of crap software on any platform. I also find the FOSS or nothing croud distastfully extreme though if I can get the needed functions from something libre, the binary blob option better have something compelling to justify itself.
(VMware Workstation is probably the next software purchase unless I have to breakdown and get a DX10 OS license - There's nothing else in Vista for my needs).
I do think that source availability leads to better software and having the option to complile source has saved me a few times but it's not a deal breaker if the closed source offering justifies itself. I'm not a trained developer so the source is as usefull too me as too any average user. Being able to find an active community of developers and see the bug reports and fixes makes a big difference though.
My objection was purely too the idea that because it's under a libre license, it's crap or that one software example is representative of the whole market. Or, because it's under a closed license, it's automatically great software. There are bad examples on all platforms just like there are some really good examples on all platforms.




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