Tweet
Agross
Way to completely ignore half my points so you can feel the need to continue ranting. Everything you felt was an argument against me was explicitly ignoring something else I said:
1. I never said anything about closed source always being better, because it isn't. I said if software has a DEDICATED team (which means they're probably paid), then that's usually the best option. That doesn't mean it has to be closed source, but paid software usually is closed and in the RIGHT HANDS, is reliable.
2. I never said anything about Microsoft doing things right. In fact they're a solid reason why closed source needs to be abandoned. But, as much as I don't like them or their products, they're clearly doing something right if they have as many servers as they do.
3. Your idea of "most" is strictly in your perspective. Just because YOU are exposed to a lot of crappy closed-source software, it doesn't mean most of it is. For example - almost all games that are worth playing are closed source. Almost all single-purpose devices with proven reliability have closed source software.
4. Your argument about "how many bugs do they patch" is not favoring your point. I'd argue Linux undergoes more patches than Windows. Regardless - if the product is doing its job and is consistently getting better, what's the problem? Doesn't matter if its closed or open source.
5. Y'know why fglrx is ACTUALLY crappy? Because there's no dedicated team (there's that word again) and most of the work was pulled directly from Windows with no optimizations.
6. Not everyone cares about the NSA backdoor stuff. I could use something open source that I know for a fact gives info to the NSA - I don't care. As long as they don't and never will interfere with my life, I don't really care what they do. Do you honestly think they care about your porn visits, credit card spendings, and google searches like "where to find weed dealers"? On the internet, you are a nobody, and so am I. They're only searching for people that they can gain from, like pirates, illegal pimps, and drug lords. Don't flatter yourself.
7. Machinery, such as the Mars rovers, may use open source software, but once the software enters the hands of the company that chooses to modify it, the software is not developed by a community anymore. I don't think NASA really gives a crap if someone decides to use their robot software, because who is going to use it? They have nothing to lose by opening the code and it takes more work to deal with licensing, so why close it?
8. Many companies that use open source software are not using the open source variant - they're still using something in-house that is closed source. For example, IBM's AIX is based on open software but isn't entirely open source. They do this because they're in control of changes and when things go wrong, they have their own developers to turn to. Another example is Crossover, which is closed source but based on wine.
Del_
Refer to point #8 I wrote to Agross. Also, do you seriously think that companies are going to spend the time, money, and risks of just simply jumping between platforms? This isn't your PC we're talking about here, this is hundreds or thousands of servers that get affected by such decisions. In some cases, massive clusters of servers all need to be changed at the same time. The chances of the execution going flawlessly is not 100%, and below 100% isn't good enough for some companies. In the case of switching from Red Hat to Suse, it really doesn't take much to have a simple problem have a cascading effect. Besides, both RH and Suse have paid and dedicated developer teams, which as I said for the billionth time, is what you need for a reliable product regardless of it being open or closed.
If something goes wrong, you're always "stuck with the people who caused it" whether its proprietary or not. The only difference is if something is entirely community driven, who will step up just simply because you asked? With a paid product the developers are obligated to assist you. Again - paid doesn't imply closed source.
Way to completely ignore half my points so you can feel the need to continue ranting. Everything you felt was an argument against me was explicitly ignoring something else I said:
1. I never said anything about closed source always being better, because it isn't. I said if software has a DEDICATED team (which means they're probably paid), then that's usually the best option. That doesn't mean it has to be closed source, but paid software usually is closed and in the RIGHT HANDS, is reliable.
2. I never said anything about Microsoft doing things right. In fact they're a solid reason why closed source needs to be abandoned. But, as much as I don't like them or their products, they're clearly doing something right if they have as many servers as they do.
3. Your idea of "most" is strictly in your perspective. Just because YOU are exposed to a lot of crappy closed-source software, it doesn't mean most of it is. For example - almost all games that are worth playing are closed source. Almost all single-purpose devices with proven reliability have closed source software.
4. Your argument about "how many bugs do they patch" is not favoring your point. I'd argue Linux undergoes more patches than Windows. Regardless - if the product is doing its job and is consistently getting better, what's the problem? Doesn't matter if its closed or open source.
5. Y'know why fglrx is ACTUALLY crappy? Because there's no dedicated team (there's that word again) and most of the work was pulled directly from Windows with no optimizations.
6. Not everyone cares about the NSA backdoor stuff. I could use something open source that I know for a fact gives info to the NSA - I don't care. As long as they don't and never will interfere with my life, I don't really care what they do. Do you honestly think they care about your porn visits, credit card spendings, and google searches like "where to find weed dealers"? On the internet, you are a nobody, and so am I. They're only searching for people that they can gain from, like pirates, illegal pimps, and drug lords. Don't flatter yourself.
7. Machinery, such as the Mars rovers, may use open source software, but once the software enters the hands of the company that chooses to modify it, the software is not developed by a community anymore. I don't think NASA really gives a crap if someone decides to use their robot software, because who is going to use it? They have nothing to lose by opening the code and it takes more work to deal with licensing, so why close it?
8. Many companies that use open source software are not using the open source variant - they're still using something in-house that is closed source. For example, IBM's AIX is based on open software but isn't entirely open source. They do this because they're in control of changes and when things go wrong, they have their own developers to turn to. Another example is Crossover, which is closed source but based on wine.
Del_
Refer to point #8 I wrote to Agross. Also, do you seriously think that companies are going to spend the time, money, and risks of just simply jumping between platforms? This isn't your PC we're talking about here, this is hundreds or thousands of servers that get affected by such decisions. In some cases, massive clusters of servers all need to be changed at the same time. The chances of the execution going flawlessly is not 100%, and below 100% isn't good enough for some companies. In the case of switching from Red Hat to Suse, it really doesn't take much to have a simple problem have a cascading effect. Besides, both RH and Suse have paid and dedicated developer teams, which as I said for the billionth time, is what you need for a reliable product regardless of it being open or closed.
If something goes wrong, you're always "stuck with the people who caused it" whether its proprietary or not. The only difference is if something is entirely community driven, who will step up just simply because you asked? With a paid product the developers are obligated to assist you. Again - paid doesn't imply closed source.
Comment