> If I were paranoid, I'd conclude that Oracle is doing Microsoft's
> bidding.
> -Ramon
"Google got former Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz to say on
the record that the Java programming language and its application
programmable interfaces (APIs) are free and available for everyone to
use."
> If I were paranoid, I'd conclude that Oracle is doing Microsoft's
> bidding.
> -Ramon
The article in the WSJ incorrectly explains that an API is "the
essential building blocks" of a programming language (or library).
This is my reply:
"Due respect to the article writer, but APIs are NOT like building
blocks. They are more like the “names” given to the building blocks.
This is like a police department copying the codes (“ten-four” is a
robbery in progress, “eight-twelve” is let’s meet at the usual donut
shop, etc) invented by another police department."
My instinctive reaction was to support Google unconditionally,
specially after reading the opinion of Gosling and Schwartz (my
heroes), but I can see now that Oracle have some valid points.
> My instinctive reaction was to support Google unconditionally,
> specially after reading the opinion of Gosling and Schwartz (my
> heroes), but I can see now that Oracle have some valid points.
> -Ramon
Google is an advertising company. They are a crappy development
operation, slipstreaming in changes without telling anyone, breaking
random things. Supporting Google unconditionally is supporting spam
unconditionally.
Is destroying java a bad thing? Some in the db world would be happy
to see it gone. Using java is like eating a burger with laparoscopic
tools. Far better to eat the damn burger!
As far as your example of police codes, there are counter-examples,
for example, some jurisdictions have their building codes copyrighted
by private companies (which I think is wrong for public policy, but
there you go).
Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
way how bogus open software can be.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"I think fishing is more fun than golfing, because if they don’t bite
it’s not your fault. " - Bishop Robert Brom
On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:39:14 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> "The jury Monday found that Google did improperly use an aspect of Java,
> nine lines of software code called rangeCheck, when it designed
> Android."
> Wow. Nine lines. That ought to be worth $billions, and give them the
> right to interfere with Google's Android development and business.
> That would be fair.
Google should be sentenced to die by changing its name to "Bing".
On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> way how bogus open software can be.
Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
Can you give details about your frustration?
-Ramon
"The proprietary vs. open software war is over. We ALL use a
combination of both"
Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft Legal Dept.
On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:23:50 -0700, John Hurley wrote:
> Bing ... why would anyone use that for a search engine name? Even bong
> would have been better ( not much but ... just saying ).
> If it was called bong then you could ask "did you bong it up?" in a
> business meeting!
There is an excellent movie called "Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo" in which one of the two main characters, Kumar, yells in the jam packed airplane: "I have a bong". He was referring to a piece of equipment that usually helps community spirit, general feeling of happiness and, after some time, appetite. That was mistaken for yelling "I have a bomb", which is something quite different these days, especially in an airplane. Excellent movie, I was laughing to tears!
Funny thing is that my last experience with the bongs was also related to Oracle. It happened during EOUG 1994 in Maastricht. The whole bunch of us went to visit Amsterdam after that. I will leave the rest to your imagination. Suffices to say that I did inhale.
> My instinctive reaction was to support Google unconditionally,
> specially after reading the opinion of Gosling and Schwartz (my
> heroes), but I can see now that Oracle have some valid points.
Funny. DailyTech seems to claim exactly the opposite:
On May 8, 1:24 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > way how bogus open software can be.
> Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
Operating system.
> Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
> avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
OK, how do you tell? Do forks not make such an issue worse? For a
complicated thing like a production ERP database, don't you get locked
in to the database vendors OS? Doesn't that effectively nullify the
whole OSS idea? How could you possibly test anything else properly
for production environments? You become entirely dependent on the
kindness of strangers, who are not kind.
> I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
> on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
I've done that on RSTS, VMS, SunOS, Solaris, Duplix, hp-ux, linux,
Windows, and some others I won't admit to. So I win.
> Can you give details about your frustration?
Someone in Romania rootkitted me. I found the attitude of admins that
I should have somehow known to watch for directories named "..."
fairly offensive. The next Redhat version didn't work on my
hardware. So, I hate Windows, I've always hated Windows, but it
proved itself superior in a real and unassailable manner.
> On May 8, 1:24 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
> > On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > > I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > > way how bogus open software can be.
> > Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
> Operating system.
> > Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
> > avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
> OK, how do you tell? Do forks not make such an issue worse? For a
> complicated thing like a production ERP database, don't you get locked
> in to the database vendors OS? Doesn't that effectively nullify the
> whole OSS idea? How could you possibly test anything else properly
> for production environments? You become entirely dependent on the
> kindness of strangers, who are not kind.
> > I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
> > on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
> I've done that on RSTS, VMS, SunOS, Solaris, Duplix, hp-ux, linux,
> Windows, and some others I won't admit to. So I win.
> > Can you give details about your frustration?
>
> Someone in Romania rootkitted me.
That is a security problem.
> I found the attitude of admins that
> I should have somehow known to watch for directories named "..."
> fairly offensive.
Social engineering - Not Linux' fault.
> The next Redhat version didn't work on my hardware.
Were you using the Enterprise Edition? How exotic/mainstream was your
hardware?
In any event, seems like Windows was the solution for ONE case.
> On May 9, 11:23 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > On May 8, 1:24 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
> > > On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > > > I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > > > way how bogus open software can be.
> > > Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
> > Operating system.
> > > Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
> > > avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
> > OK, how do you tell? Do forks not make such an issue worse? For a
> > complicated thing like a production ERP database, don't you get locked
> > in to the database vendors OS? Doesn't that effectively nullify the
> > whole OSS idea? How could you possibly test anything else properly
> > for production environments? You become entirely dependent on the
> > kindness of strangers, who are not kind.
> > > I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
> > > on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
> > I've done that on RSTS, VMS, SunOS, Solaris, Duplix, hp-ux, linux,
> > Windows, and some others I won't admit to. So I win.
> > > Can you give details about your frustration?
> >
> > Someone in Romania rootkitted me.
> That is a security problem.
> > I found the attitude of admins that
> > I should have somehow known to watch for directories named "..."
> > fairly offensive.
> Social engineering - Not Linux' fault.
WTF? No social engineering, do you know what a rootkit is? This was
quite so linux' fault, leaving a security hole for worms to find.
> > The next Redhat version didn't work on my hardware.
> Were you using the Enterprise Edition? How exotic/mainstream was your
> hardware?
Very mainstream hardware of the day, before any silly EE editions.
> In any event, seems like Windows was the solution for ONE case.
This would be one case in the face of a linux advocate, changing his
mind the hard way. And why do you think it doesn't generalize?
> Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
> phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
> and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> way how bogus open software can be.
How can Open Source be "bogus"?
Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something about it, at least in theory.
=?windows-1252?Q?P=F3l?= <Pól...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
> > Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
> > phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
> > and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > way how bogus open software can be.
> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something > about it, at least in theory.
Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of house owners. Give or take :-D
>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>> about it, at least in theory.
> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> house owners. Give or take :-D
Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus". FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front - you don't have vendor lock-in.
As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted into Windows in over a year.
But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before - people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus" - never...
As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
Paul...
BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
>>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>>> about it, at least in theory.
>> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>> house owners. Give or take :-D
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making
> major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
> very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
This is not entirely true. The concept of "open source" is true and honest,
but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
"Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
flavor of the GPL).
If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom". To be
clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP should
be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use their
product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license
that the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
> into Windows in over a year.
While the options for desktop Linux have grown, there are still many areas
where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
ways - not only in features but in how they are done. This is a video I
made showing a fairly common example: <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The
response by some in COLA was that the task shown, rotating an image in a
word processor, is something they essentially never see happen and would
never even consider. This is likely true - they use LibreOffice (or
OpenOffice). In those packages, while the feature is available, it is done
so poorly it is all but ignored. In better packages this feature is easy to
use and thus *is* used: in newsletters, fliers, etc.
Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
handle it better than does desktop Linux:
Snit: ----- Excellent screencasting software, similar to ScreenFlow. And
example of something I find key to its use:
<http://youtu.be/To4v70huwAU>. What OSS tool on desktop Linux
has anything even close?
----- Peter Köhlmann: ----- There are several more. Look up "Istanbul" for example or
"Byzanz", or "Cankiri" The list can grow quite a bit, but
these are the most used ones
-----
None of the three programs Peter pointed to do the task shown in the
video... and Peter was never able to find *any* way to do such a task on
desktop Linux. He never admitted to this, of course. And this is common
with the false "advocates" of COLA - they are not familiar with the
competition and when they are shown what it can do, and find desktop Linux
is lacking, they refuse to admit to it. In the case of Peter, he becomes
angry and starts making absurd accusations and spewing silly insults -
including ones directed at my personal and professional life.
> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
> the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
> people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus"
> - never...
> As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
I would not call desktop Linux "bogus". It is excellent... it is just not a
good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
> Paul...
> BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not
> likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
>> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
>> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
>> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
>> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
> This is not entirely true. The concept of "open source" is true and honest,
> but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
> reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
> "Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
> really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
> Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
> being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
> flavor of the GPL).
You are forgetting about the *BSD licences, which are, to all intents and purposes, Public Domain. But it still doesn't answer my question to the OP about FLOSS being "bogus". Those who choose to release their software under the GPL know exactly what they're getting into, as do those who use it. It's not "bogus" to impose (very minor) conditions on those to whom you grant the right to use your software for any purpose whatsoever along with the added bonus of your fabulous code.
I don't wish to rehash the arguments that I used to read on COLA a decade ago - I'm from cdos myself - I would just say that, AFAIC, if FLOSS (and in particular the GPL) is "bogus" then you could easily say that all software is - Public Domain and *BSD possibly excepted.
> If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
> public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
> produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom".
The argument that even free societies have to impose restrictions... rehash...
> To be clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP should
> be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use their
> product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
> names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
> own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license
> that the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
I give money to charity - someone is given that money and spends it on themselves - theft? BTW, just to be clear, I have no problem with IP - I just feel that ultimately IT and the planet in general is better served by FLOSS which is why I encourage it. Just like in the fields of science (my own being genetics) and literature, I encourage the Creative Commons.
>> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
>> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
>> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
>> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
>> into Windows in over a year.
> While the options for desktop Linux have grown, there are still many areas
> where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
> While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
> ways - not only in features but in how they are done.
With respect to LibreOffice, I disagree - the open format allows the software to be exploited (positive) in novel and productive ways.
I would however say that the GIMP is inferior to Photoshop - my question would then be a) why fork out loads of dosh for funcitonality that 99.999% of people never use - and I certainly won't.
> This is a video I
> made showing a fairly common example:<http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The
> response by some in COLA was that the task shown, rotating an image in a
> word processor, is something they essentially never see happen and would
> never even consider. This is likely true - they use LibreOffice (or
> OpenOffice). In those packages, while the feature is available, it is done
> so poorly it is all but ignored. In better packages this feature is easy to
> use and thus *is* used: in newsletters, fliers, etc.
So, in some areas FLOSS is behind a couple of years for marginal functionality - so what? I would argue that FLOSS is ahead of closed source in important areas such as stability and price.
> Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
> Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
> handle it better than does desktop Linux:
I've said that there are areas where closed source is superior.
>> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
>> the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
>> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
>> people differing over the merits of the different packages,
Vide supra.
>> but "bogus" - never...
It's the bogus tag that I object to.
> I would not call desktop Linux "bogus". It is excellent... it is just not a
> good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
You and I are agreeing to differ - I respect that. It's the blanket dismissal of (all varieties AFAICS) of FLOSS that I find unacceptable.,
>>> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
>>> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
>>> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
>>> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
>> This is not entirely true. The concept of "open source" is true and honest,
>> but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
>> reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
>> "Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
>> really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
>> Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
>> being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
>> flavor of the GPL).
> You are forgetting about the *BSD licences, which are, to all intents
> and purposes, Public Domain.
I did not forget them, I just did not talk about them. :)
Yes, the BSD licenses are far more "free", but the FSF folks are the ones
who mostly use the term "Free" and are the ones who bastardize the term.
But I have no problem with the BSD licenses, either. As noted, I am very
pro-choice and feel people should be able to use any of a large number of
licenses / license-types.
> But it still doesn't answer my question to the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
> Those who choose to release their software under the GPL know exactly what
> they're getting into, as do those who use it. It's not "bogus" to impose (very
> minor) conditions on those to whom you grant the right to use your software
> for any purpose whatsoever along with the added bonus of your fabulous code.
On that I agree. As noted, I have no problem with people opting to use the
GPL - and am very happy it exists and thankful to Stallman for his work on
it. I also do not have any reason to think that code protected by the GPL
is "bad" or "wrong" or whatever - in fact, much of it is excellent (the
Linux kernel itself, for example... not that I know diddly about kernels,
but it seems to be excellent based on what runs on it). Webkit is another
example of software protected by the GPL which, from what I can tell, is
excellent.
> I don't wish to rehash the arguments that I used to read on COLA a
> decade ago - I'm from cdos myself - I would just say that, AFAIC, if
> FLOSS (and in particular the GPL) is "bogus" then you could easily say
> that all software is - Public Domain and *BSD possibly excepted.
I would have to see the reason why someone would say the GPL is bogus.
I will say those who run around screaming that IP does not exist and then
claim to back the GPL are being hypocritical... and if those who claim IP
licenses in general are bogus often ignore the fact that the GPL is an IP
license (see the debate Homer has been having with Carroll... and my
comments to it which Homer has no response for).
>> If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
>> public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
>> produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom".
> The argument that even free societies have to impose restrictions...
> rehash...
Oh, I have no problem with free societies having restrictions. But one can
have public domain code in a free society.
>> To be clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP
>> should be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use
>> their product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
>> names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
>> own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license that
>> the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
> I give money to charity - someone is given that money and spends it on
> themselves - theft?
What was the purpose of the charity? If you gave money to help a student go
to college and they use it in that way - spending it "on themselves" - then
that is not theft. If you give money to a charity which spends the money in
a way other than how they said they would then it may very well be theft (or
at least a misuse of funds... I do not want to get into a semantic debate
over if the misuse if "theft" or not).
> BTW, just to be clear, I have no problem with IP - I just feel that ultimately
> IT and the planet in general is better served by FLOSS which is why I
> encourage it. Just like in the fields of science (my own being genetics) and
> literature, I encourage the Creative Commons.
You encourage a system you respect. I have no problem with that. Now if
you were to try to force people to use the GPL or to use the Creative
Commons licenses I would have a problem with that - but I see no reason to
think that is your goal.
>>> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
>>> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
>>> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
>>> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
>>> into Windows in over a year.
>> While the options for desktop Linux have grown, there are still many areas
>> where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
>> While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
>> ways - not only in features but in how they are done.
> With respect to LibreOffice, I disagree - the open format allows the
> software to be exploited (positive) in novel and productive ways.
Can you give a couple of examples of how LibreOffice makes getting some task
done better than the commercial competition? I show a video, below, where
it is clearly well behind the competition. I have older videos of other
areas where OpenOffice was really messed up, but in the newest LibreOffice
they have resolved those issues (or at least mostly). This is very good in
my view and I am happy to see it.
> I would however say that the GIMP is inferior to Photoshop - my question
> would then be a) why fork out loads of dosh for funcitonality that
> 99.999% of people never use - and I certainly won't.
If you like GIMP use it... I have no problem with that. But keep in mind
that it is not just about what a program can do, it is *how* it does it.
Not that the UI of Photoshop is perfect, but it surely gets a lot less
complaints than does the one of GIMP (though the newest GIMP which just came
out does improve things... and the splash screens on the last couple
versions of Photoshop are some of the most absurd and poorly designed splash
screens I have seen on *any* software, no matter the license). I will say
with Photoshop I personally use a lot of the features it offers that GIMP
does not (layer groups - though GIMP finally has those, smart objects,
non-destructive filtering, multiple masks, etc.). Then again, GIMP handles
favicons much better than does Photoshop - which is absurd given how
Photoshop is sold as a part of a web design bundle. How hard would it be
for Adobe to add similar features? Yes, there is a plug-in, but even with
it Photoshop is simply behind here. Absurd.
>> This is a video I made showing a fairly common
>> example:<http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The response by some in COLA was that
>> the task shown, rotating an image in a word processor, is something they
>> essentially never see happen and would never even consider. This is likely
>> true - they use LibreOffice (or OpenOffice). In those packages, while the
>> feature is available, it is done so poorly it is all but ignored. In better
>> packages this feature is easy to use and thus *is* used: in newsletters,
>> fliers, etc.
> So, in some areas FLOSS is behind a couple of years for marginal
> functionality - so what? I would argue that FLOSS is ahead of closed
> source in important areas such as stability and price.
Well, acquisition price is a no brainer. As far as stability, I would love
to see the evidence for it. Modern OSs (desktop Linux, OS X, and Windows)
are all quite stable these days. As far as the applications, I rarely see
crashes in the software I use... but do see them from time to time on all
three OSs.
>> Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
>> Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
>> handle it better than does desktop Linux:
> I've said that there are areas where closed source is superior.
Fair enough. I would love to find examples where open source is as clearly
superior... other than the example I gave, above, about favicons.
...
>> I would not call desktop Linux "bogus". It is excellent... it is just not a
>> good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
> You and I are agreeing to differ - I respect that. It's the blanket
> dismissal of (all varieties AFAICS) of FLOSS that I find unacceptable.,
Fair enough. And to clarify my above comment: while I think *in general*
desktop Linux is not a good competitor to the competition, there are places
where I think it is - some examples include desktops used largely as web
kiosks (and that is becoming a more and more common usage pattern) and in
some businesses where the software / tasks needed are limited to a few
pieces of software, often including a home-grown database or other internal
application. In those cases desktop Linux might not only be less expensive
to acquire but also easier to maintain and be just as easy to use (or close
enough as to not really matter). I am certainly not against the use of
...
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 8:55:47 PM UTC+2, Pól wrote:
> On 08/05/12 16:55, joel garry wrote:
> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something > about it, at least in theory.
> Paul...
Well, this is pure theory indeed. Who really has the time to dig into millions of lines of code to track down some exotic bug - let alone correct it, document it and share it with the community? What I do prefer, is a good support system for reporting bugs and getting in touch with the original developers. There is great open source software out there - but there is also great closed software out there. I really couldn't say that I prefer one over the other; I prefer quality...
=?UTF-8?B?UMOzbA==?= <Pól...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
> >> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
> >> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
> >> about it, at least in theory.
> > Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> > like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> > house owners. Give or take :-D
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making > major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was > very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
I once translated an IRC client to swedish! :-D
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
Just as house manufacturing isn't bogus :)
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's > open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front > - you don't have vendor lock-in.
True, but that doesn't give 99.99% of users one iota more control.
In fact, most shareware projects offer far more control to the end user, since they are developed by one person, or a small group of people, that more often than not are keen to hear about customer demand, bugs and fixes.
Open source projects are badly managed, forked constantly (if active) or desperately outdated (if interest has faded) and rarely - if ever - has one point of feedback from the users, or if they do (i.e. bugzilla and such) have so many involved that prioritization is thinly spread amongst lots of people.
For the end user, open source projects are usually a very tricky thing to get involved in. But they *are* open and there is (usually) no vendor lockin.
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior > technical choice for servers.
No doubt. I currently run OSX on my production servers, but will migrate to Linux in a month, so I'm well aware of the strengths of both BSD and Linux in that space.
> the reason Windows is so popular is because of the multiplicity of > apps available, but FLOSS is now matching Windows for end-user > apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted into Windows in > over a year.
Microsoft Office is, however, a poor horse to contend with. It's a suit of apps with a thousand features where the end user uses ten. Most contenders match those ten features and thus compete well with MS Office.
I have no idea about Libre, but I know Gimp is a very *poor* contender to Photoshop, where the userbase probably uses more than half of all the features on a daily basis
> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on > the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
I can't tell you what Joel meant by that, but anyone touting open source as a feature for end users is selling snake oil. Whether a project is open source or based on open source makes exactly no impact to the end user. They can not utilize the fact that it is open source, and as described earlier, it being open source may just severely restrict the amount of control they can exercise on the project.
> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before - > people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus" > - never...
> As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
> BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not > likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
