Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2012 22:30 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 535150
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-18
Sweeping generalization, it's the new fact. This is bullshit. There's good OSS software and bad OSS software, just like how there's good closed-source software and bad closed-source software.
Because Linux is the only OSS software in the world and even if it isn't we can extrapolate from it to everything else. There are many OSS projects with rigorous testing, both manual and automated, and there are many closed-source companies that does neither.
Wow, really. This is just as much nonsense as "all OSs software is crap". It's simply not true. Sometimes bugs get fixed in a timely manner, sometimes it takes forever and sometimes it never happens. This is regardless of if the software is closed or open.
Yes, naturally. Closed-source is bug free and when it isn't all bugs are fixed in a timely manner. Hmm..yeah, maybe in some alternate reality.
I've never had this problem, EVER, on my OSS desktops; be it Linux or BSD.
Wait, are you talking about OSS or closed-source software?