Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 24th Nov 2012 17:52 UTC
Editorial Do you depend on your computer for your living? If so, I'm sure you've thought long and hard about which hardware and software to use. I'd like to explain why I use generic "white boxes" running open source software. These give me a platform I rely on for 100% availability. They also provide a low-cost solution with excellent security and privacy.
Thread beginning with comment 543198
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ...
by zhuravlik on Sun 25th Nov 2012 15:54 UTC in reply to "..."
zhuravlik
Member since:
2009-08-24

>at the end the quality of programmer is what makes the difference.

Yes, I fully agree with this viewpoint. Just in the closed world this quality dies with programmer, but in the open world it lives forever in publicly available well-written source code or in design principles for which no one will sue anyone else.

"The open" does not mean "open source" always - it is the freedom of choice. You choose proprietary software, if it fits your needs. And you choose free software, where it performs better. And the interoperability and interchangeability is by-design.

Even some proprietary companies live such a way. They just do better than others, and don't sue anyone, and don't restrict user's freedom for choice, because they are sure that their products are awesome, and user will choose their products nevertheless. The programmers actively interoperate with users and community, and they are just proud of their work and work even better.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: ...
by moondevil on Mon 26th Nov 2012 09:38 in reply to "RE: ..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Ever heard of patents and restricted licenses?

Edited 2012-11-26 09:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by zhuravlik on Tue 27th Nov 2012 19:05 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
zhuravlik Member since:
2009-08-24

>Ever heard of patents and restricted licenses?

Yes, all the world have a lot of fun watching this soap opera.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by henderson101 on Mon 26th Nov 2012 16:23 in reply to "RE: ..."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Just in the closed world this quality dies with programmer, but in the open world it lives forever in publicly available well-written source code or in design principles for which no one will sue anyone else.


This alone proves you have little knowledge of how real commercial development works in the majority of the business world. Open Source simply doesn't exist in any meaningful way, end of story.

Be aware - open source tools do NOT automatically create open source. e.g. Using Eclipse doesn't create opensource any more than using Visual Studio. Thinking any different is naive.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by moondevil on Mon 26th Nov 2012 22:16 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Quite true.

It was an eye opener for me to move from the cosy open source world of the university, into the harsh reality of the enterprise and big corporations.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by zhuravlik on Tue 27th Nov 2012 19:03 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
zhuravlik Member since:
2009-08-24

>This alone proves you have little knowledge of how real commercial development works in the majority of the business world.

Of course, that's why the Linux kernel is currently one of the most actively developed widely commercially-used projects. Also illumos kernel is now developed by several corps. And mostly advanced Java-related companies have IDEs with open core. And even Microsoft releases Entity Framework, ASP.NET MVC, and some other important parts of their product line as open source software.

>Open Source simply doesn't exist in any meaningful way, end of story.

For you - does not. For all those who do not understand that code-sharing is better that inventing the bicycle inside every new company. Major players share parts of their codebase by providing open source under liberate license. Software becomes harder and harder to maintain, and only shared attempts to develop it will lead the players to the victory.

And there are other sides: community growth, larger tester crowd, popularity of the company as liberate and open, and also recruitment - newcomers are already familiar with product's core when they come to work.

No, I'm not the fan of GPL3-only, etc. Software may have closed components. But open core and good interoperability - they are the main perils of success.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by zima on Wed 28th Nov 2012 10:45 in reply to "RE: ..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Even some proprietary companies live such a way. They just do better than others, and don't sue anyone, and don't restrict user's freedom for choice, because they are sure that their products are awesome, and user will choose their products nevertheless.

It's not so good, not so easy and simple; there are factors outside of it.

For example Opera - they're among the biggest supporters of open web and so on, Opera desktop browser is much less popular than, say, IE.
Only on mobile it is reversed (mobile versions of Opera enjoying huge adoption, IE hardly registers) ...more ~social factors and dynamics play a role.

Reply Parent Score: 2