so who here has no problem with open source?
I get the feeling that CoT regulars tend to not have a problem with it...is that correct? or am I just making statistics up?
I know that there are a couple who do, philo* and I think dennis forbes....is there anyone else?
* the microsoft shill
September 30th, 2006 3:56am
I don't think Philo has a problem with it either, other than it being treated as a Holy Grail.
I think so long as its treated with the same level of respect in terms of whatever licence it is as would any piece of closed source that you had under closed licence then that's fine. The problem is that some of the most vocal adherents of FOSS have never written any, only use it, never contribute to it and mistake Free as in without cost.
Open source is cool but not the Holy Grail
Free (i.e. Libre) *is* a very good thing but not a right and definitely not the moral imperative that some seem to believe.
I honestly think that it _is_ a moral imperative that it _exists_.
The fact that there is now an alternative to overpriced software provided by massive monopolies is a _good thing_
Even as a software developer myself I dont see it as a threat, the two approaches can very happily coexist IMO. and in fact they are _both_ necessary to a healthy ecosystem.
I am constantly surprised by the rabid fear many developers on JoS seem to exhibit towards OSS, it defies any reasonable understanding of what OSS is and what its limitations are.
September 30th, 2006 5:07am
I was thinking more of those Free software advocates who go off on one at the hint of a proprietry licence.
you know what? Ive _never_ been attacked by a free software writer for writing closed source software. just been lucky I guess, I hear a lot about their rabid attacks, just never seen it myself.
September 30th, 2006 7:21am
They do exist albeit as a very small minority (probably about the same number as "Open Source is communism" idiots).
> I don't think Philo
Philo has left the building. Invoking his memory only causes hist ghost to shy away from the light.
son of parnas
September 30th, 2006 9:52am
I think it's great that it exists, but I don't use it that often (when the license allows) because the documentation is so shitty that I have to spend just as much time understanding how to make it do what I want, that I might as well have written it myself.
September 30th, 2006 11:18am
Most of the packages that are actually good are either well documented or blindingly obvious to use. I also like the fact that some projects are fanatical about documenting. OpenBSD, for instance, won't let a package in that doesn't have a decent man page. That makes their online man pages incredibly useful, and I refer to them constantly when I'm working on Windows.
In the JoS arena, proprietary-software-is-of-the-devil types are a lot more rare than the open-source-stole-my-job-and-made-my-dog-leave-me sorts. Which leads me to the belief that they aren't good programmers, if a bunch of guys doing volunteer work turned out a better product that drove them out of business.
>They do exist albeit as a very small minority (probably
>about the same number as "Open Source is communism" idiots).
Wasn't it Bill Gates who said that open source is communism?
September 30th, 2006 2:17pm
"I honestly think that it _is_ a moral imperative that it _exists_. "
September 30th, 2006 2:17pm
i use so much of it, dunno where I'd be without it. let's see ...
oh fuck, it just goes on forever. there are moments it's annoying (why don't mod_perl fix their stupid make test bug?) but on the whole, it rocks.
captain fucking obvious ($--)
September 30th, 2006 8:48pm
gcc sure as hell should be at the top of the list for any FOSS advocate. Without it...well, it exists because it has to for anything else to exist. It, or something else that serves the exact same purpose, which might as well be the same thing.