To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The trends in commercial software are moving more and more to user driven development, and not compromising on quality. Where I work we have a 1 month release cycle, where every month we ask our users (we call them product owners internally to try and keep from falling into holier then thou programmer attitudes) what the features they need the most are, and let that drive the features of the release. We have two testers to every developer, and these are trained people who give very good bug reports and methodically test the software, not just random people on the interweb. We aim for 3 lines of test code to every 1 line of production code, and most of the team practices test driven development. Every code check in needs to be reviewed by another programmer before it goes to the testers, and our build server automatically runs through integration tests on every check in to the source tree. And every iteration has time set aside for regression testing, deployment testing, and performance testing to be absolutely sure we ship quality.
Now, we are ahead of the curve on this, and Scrum is one of the more hardcore of the Agile processes, but this is direction the industry is moving in. The software industry has traditionally had an abysmal standard of quality, and has been driven by cowboy coders who dont give a crap about the people they are actually writing the code for. In anything even resembling what would be considered a modern process, we are now taking a more holistic approach, and learning how to stop wasting everybodies time and money building things that are un tested and features that are misunderstood, or just plain un needed.
By contrast, open source embraces that mentality. Unit testing is rarely, if ever used. The commercial software world is bringing the developer and the user closer together, while the open source world pushes them further apart. Users are something to be taken care of by downstream, and heaven forbid if any of them try to break that barrier and ask a developer directly for help, which they only do in desperation when a distro doesn't have a good working relationship with upstream. What I would consider good developers (i.e. people who care about the big picture) either do not stick around long (like con kolivas) or become completely disillusioned and just stop doing anything that effects the end user anymore (havoc, miguel)
Sorry for the huge rant, but that comment is exactly the reason that I post the things that I do in places like this. There is this massive misconception that open source is inherently better for the users, and it really isn't, except in a very abstract way that has little to no real value. You say that open source is like punk rock and commercial software is like top 40, fine. I say open source is like communism, fantastic ideas, very idealistic, inherently flawed in its inability to deliver meaningful innovation or an acceptable level of quality without doing so on the back of a more practical system.
And seriously dude, apple is punk rock. They are hip, revolutionary, and mean to the bone ;-)
And just so you know, this is coming from someone who has used linux for about 6 years now on and off (currently on, I am running hardy), has participated in a great deal of open source projects, and doesn't any more due to a serious disillusionment with the whole system.
All of this is required if you are about to sell a product in exchange for money.
Open source code isn't about that at all ... it is about exchanging code in an effort to evolve a better product.
If I am but a lowly "random person on the inetrweb", and I download a piece of open source software (say KDE 4.0, for example), and I read and understand that I am being offered the software at no cost to me but with no guarantees as to its performance, and I then try out the software, notice a problem with it and I submit a bug report ... have I not tested the software?
Even though I am just a lowly "random person" the bug I discovered is still a bug no matter who discovered it. It does not become a bug just because software QA noticed it.
Your prejudice is showing here.
I actually agree with this. Much OSS software is crap. Unfortunately for you, much commercial software is crap too. I dont even get me started on "Enterprise" software, the very worst software there ever was.
Punk rock isn't hip and never was. Unless you're taking about that sad-ass excuse for "punk" you have over in the U.S these days.
Apple is more like those stylish 80's pop bands that everyone has forgotten about now.
And just so you know, this is coming from someone who has used Linux, Unix and Windows for about 18 years now doing tech support, software development (oss & commercial), system administration and IT management.






Member since:
2006-10-10
Did you forget to attach your resume to that last post? That was all "Mr. Company-man like".
Yeah, Microsoft is _really_ hurting for software engineers and capital, aren't they. Well, maybe they are.....but it's Google's fault that it's apparently a much better company to work for.
Let me tell you what's good with having open source.....it forces you software engineers to get off your ass, leave your comfort zone, and do something innovative. Case in point, if there was no Firefox, we'd still be stuck on that POS IE6 because MS was in no way throwing any resources towards that 'product' (and I use the term loosely).
I like to think of OSS as the Punk Rock to proprietary software's Top 40 Radio. Creamy, polished, and bloated Top 40 gets old and stale, after so many years, and it takes Punk to come back and bite it in the ass and make music interesting again. Everything is cyclical.