To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
... and you wouldn't need to either because they don't take 10 years to make it 1.0 and don't stay in perpetual beta/alpha states like open source software.
No, most closed source software slaps a 1.0 version number on it whether it's ready or not, because their marketing department determines it must be released on a certain date. Even when that's not the case, there's generally not enough testing done at most x.0 releases no matter if you're talking open or closed source. Want a good example of a closed source, piece of crap software? iTunes version 8.1, have a look at that. Oh, it looks slick, sure, but they made some serious regressions in the QA department between 8.0.2 and 8.1, and that's not even a .0 release.
Open or closed source isn't what determines a good product, it's design and testing that distinguishes a piece of crap from a work of good engineering. I've seen some closed source software that absolutely sucked, and I've seen some that was excellent, likewise with open source software.
The difficulty is that when talking about Linux for the desktop, we're talking about people who CAN'T write a few lines of code to fix some "problem" for themselves.
It always seems to be the nerds who run about talking about Linux for the desktop, forgetting that 99.9% of the computer using population couldn't care less about what nerds think.






Member since:
2006-02-10
Heh... Yesterday I wrote a 3 line patch for an open source program, to make it behave according to my needs. I couldn't possibly have done it with Windows or MacOSX...
Unlike 99.9% of people on earth right now, I am simply not interested in owning hardware I can't tweak. I guess I am just weird, but I like computers
Edited 2009-03-26 04:12 UTC