Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:23 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source When Windows Vista was launched, the Free Software Foundation started its BadVista campaign, which was aimed at informing users about what the FSF considered user-restrictive features in Vista. Luckily for the FSF, Vista didn't really need a bad-mouthing campaign to fail. Now that Windows 7 is receiving a lot of positive press, the FSF dusted off the BadVista drum, and gave it a fresh coat of paint.
Thread beginning with comment 381012
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
Member since:

That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.

Right! Because this doesn't happen in Open-Source-Wonderland! Where some freetard can always be counted on to develop the next video editor, the next audio player, the next window manager, and so on. Of course, here it's called CHOICE. That means that the users have to choose between software that sucks and software that sucks even more.

There is duplication in the Open Source world for sure, and I agree it is wasteful. However, you're missing the fact that you are *always* able to extend the work of others as a basis for your own work - if you choose too. Then you spend your time making useful enhancements rather than re-inventing the basics (eg. xine, mplayer, and the sublime vlc all use and extend the hard work in the FFmpeg library [and other libraries]). This means that vlc supports far more codecs than Windows Media Player (apart from a few that companies refuse to allow implementations of, but there are other, better alternatives anyway).

With proprietary implementations the companies must either license someone else's implementation (if it is even available for licensing) and on terms that may not suit them (too expensive, can't use for a particular purpose, can't complete with the original etc). The companies spend so much money getting the basics done that they often can't afford to do much extension beyond a few differentiators.

Competition is good. Coopertition is much better (less wasteful globally and can result in more progress).

Reply Parent Score: 2