|
Home > Archive > Unix Programming > January 2004 > Guardian: open source is a throwback says Jack Schofield
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Guardian: open source is a throwback says Jack Schofield
|
|
| malcolm 2004-01-25, 6:26 am |
| Why you can't get something for nothing
Jack Schofield Jan 22 2004
[..]
"There are also undoubted benefits from running Open Source software,
though the financial ones can be small or even negative. Companies are
bound to be tempted by the idea of getting something for nothing .."
"The facility to fix bugs yourself and to modify programs also sounds
attractive. However, fixing bugs is not practical for most companies,
and modifications can be positively dangerous.
If you are really going to do these things, you need to hire several
reliable programmers with kernel-level skills"
"Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from
expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to
cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of
view, Open Source is a throwback."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/st...1127802,00.html
| |
|
| malcolm wrote:
[..]
quote:
> "Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from
> expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to
> cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of
> view, Open Source is a throwback."
>
> - http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/st...1127802,00.html
so the whole thing is based on a misconception, that being able to use the
source means you have to use the source.
certainly mac users know how silly that is ... when was the last time you
had to dive into Darwin?
| |
| David Schwartz 2004-01-25, 2:35 pm |
|
"malcolm" <malcolmny_1@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:64cff82f.0401251145.3b6d311e@posting.google.com...
quote:
> "Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from
> expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to
> cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of
> view, Open Source is a throwback."
That's hilarious. Is Open Source software supposed to be "expensive" or
"company-specific"? As for "hand-written", how else is software written?
DS
| |
| Ian Pilcher 2004-01-25, 3:35 pm |
| David Schwartz wrote:quote:
>
> That's hilarious. Is Open Source software supposed to be "expensive" or
> "company-specific"? As for "hand-written", how else is software written?
>
Well, at some companies it certainly seems to come from some other part
of the body.
--
========================================
================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher@comcast.net
========================================
================================
| |
| Barry Margolin 2004-01-25, 4:33 pm |
| In article <64cff82f.0401251145.3b6d311e@posting.google.com>,
malcolmny_1@lycos.com (malcolm) wrote:
quote:
> "Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from
> expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to
> cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of
> view, Open Source is a throwback."
The fallacy in this argument is the assumption that the source will be
used directly by the customer. A good way to clear this up is by an
analogy: Open Source software is like a car -- if you don't have the
resources or expertise to fix it yourself, you can take it to any garage
or detail shop to get work done for you. Proprietary software would be
like having to go back to the manufacturer to get any work done.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
| |
| Stefaan A Eeckels 2004-01-26, 6:34 pm |
| On 25 Jan 2004 11:45:21 -0800
malcolmny_1@lycos.com (malcolm) wrote:
quote:
> "Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from
> expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to
> cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of
> view, Open Source is a throwback."
This is valid only for generic applications like word
processors or spreadsheets. Before they were available
as POTS, they were either not available, or indeed rather
limited. All the rest either needs extensive customisation,
or bespoke software.
When starting from POTS, it usually is the organisation that
gets customised, not the software. This strikes me as
particularly sad, because the computer is the most flexible
machine humankind has ever conceived. But it fits well with
current management dogma, that would like to eliminate
reliance on specific human competence and knowledge.
--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
| |
| Kenny McCormack 2004-01-31, 4:34 am |
| In article <20040127010721.71a00562.tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu>,
Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> wrote:
....quote:
>This is valid only for generic applications like word
>processors or spreadsheets. Before they were available
>as POTS...
POTS?
| |
| Rich Teer 2004-01-31, 5:34 am |
| On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Kenny McCormack wrote:
quote:
> In article <20040127010721.71a00562.tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu>,
> Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> wrote:
> ...
>
> POTS?
<Somehting (Proprietory?)> Off The Shelf ("The Shelf" being
the sehlves in retail computer stores, etc.). I've seen it
more frequently as COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
| |
| =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= 2004-01-31, 5:34 am |
| gazelle@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
quote:
> In article <20040127010721.71a00562.tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu>,
> Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> wrote:
> ...
>
> POTS?
Plain Old Telephone Service. Hmm, doesn't make much sense.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se
|
|
|
|
|