What is Digg?185 Comments
- devilchilduke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+47the pretty graphs are pretty useless
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+34Open source pros (from a programmer's viewpoint):
1. FREE
2. Innovative and disruptive
3. Makes software development fun again
4. Widely accepted projects are less risky and less costly (i.e. Apache Web Server, PHP, MySQL)
5. Freedom from the Microsoft monopoly where you spend 1/3 of your time reading their endless supply of materials, and know that success is a base-hit until they swallow you up or a home run if they buy you out.
6. A better platform for focusing on solutions rather than technologies
7. No payments to Microsoft
OpenSource Cons:
1. Books for new technologies are often written by first-time writers
2. Fast and frequent changes--difficult to keep up with unless you enjoy "testing" their software or being the guinea pig
3. Costs to train developers on new technologies and once they are trained it is difficult to keep them
4. FREE is overshadowed by configuration, migration, training, etc.
5. What's popular today can easily be replaced in a very short time
6. Difficult to find trained developers who know the technologies
7. Learning curve--because it often takes so many technologies to do anything of value, one must learn each technology and then learn how they all work together.
8. Technologies are moving forward independently--which creates compatibility issues - Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21I know, where are the legends? What kind of idiot puts up graphs without identifying what they mean?
- maccam94, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Some developers work out of the pride they get from their programs. Some developers work to fix problems that irritate them. Still others work for donations, and still OTHERS are paid by businesses.
- thewump, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Was hoping for more meat.
- mfearby, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20As soon as I saw the Apache market-share graph, I knew that this "article" was just another more of the same beat-up about Microsoft losing ground. Nothing new to see here... move along, people. Meh.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+161. Books for new technologies are often written by first-time writers
What? Ever hear of Oreilly? They write excellent books and proof quite well. Same goes for the Dummies series.
2. Fast and frequent changes--difficult to keep up with unless you enjoy "testing" their software or being the guinea pig
What? You don't have to patch to the latest and greatest. Security patches are typically clearly labeled.
3. Costs to train developers on new technologies and once they are trained it is difficult to keep them
Oh please. Same goes for closed source, so this isn't a con, it just is the cost of IT.
4. FREE is overshadowed by configuration, migration, training, etc.
What? What part of free don't you understand? The idea is free, as in freedom, not free as in free beer (although that is a side effect). However, let me point you to the mess that was Win2k3 when it was released...same argument could be said for that...or god forbid you are deploying Vista.
5. What's popular today can easily be replaced in a very short time
How is this a con?
6. Difficult to find trained developers who know the technologies
What? MCSEs are a dime a dozen, but maybe 1 in 20 of them are any good....so what's your point?
7. Learning curve--because it often takes so many technologies to do anything of value, one must learn each technology and then learn how they all work together.
What? See 6.
8. Technologies are moving forward independently--which creates compatibility issues
Uh no...hence the idea of modularity...unlike in the MS world. - squeaker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Jesus, do you ***** work for Microsoft?
I think you're the one who needs to get the ***** over yourself. - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Microsoft scrambling to beat out ODF with Office XML.
Yeah.....Microsoft's not panicking at all. - nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17For all the newbies...this is 7of7 - a worthless troll who does nothing but post FUD/snarky comments on all Linux and Apple threads. Feel free to block him.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Where the hell have you been?
- ha1f, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14No, its called corporate funding. Learn something.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12With the threat of Office XML not being passed as a standard, I can tell you that MS is ***** their pants right now.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You probably think that you are smart for thinking beyond the status quo, but you're not.
1. Although most programmers don't pay, someone has to, especially if that person own his business and happens to also be a programmer. Furthermore, you sound like a raging, foaming at the mouth MS fanboy. You quickly jump to defend MS while you failed to understand that Open Source also exist under the WIndows platform.
2. It's harder to be innovative when you work for a deadline, with corporate requirements up behind your ass. Most open source software has less risk because you are free to do whatever you want.
3. See above. Software programming is fun when you don't have pressure and can experiment with different technologies. Open source has much more technologies than Close source. Say you are doing a webapp what are you going to use in windows that's not open source? .NET compared to what? PHP, Perl, Ruby, Java, Python.
4. Just because its cost difference isn't much when YOU try to get a hosting doesn't mean it doesn't cost less when you try to host yourself. Try to think outside the square beyond your run of the mill ISP. Hosting on Windows for a website cost: the OS, the licensing, SQL Server, IIS, etc. Pennies my ***** ass. The only reason why you see pennies difference is that they distribute the cost to other customers.
5. No, you misread. He meant Licensing.
6. Not entirely. Open source are solutions focus. They don't use the over-hyped technologies like .NET or Silverlight to get the same thing done.
7. Covered in point #1
It's lovely to see you covered to pros and just briefly talks about the cons. You disappoint me. Instead of advocating a different point of view, you're simple just a big fat troll paying lip service for MS. - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Have you been following Microsoft's desperate attempts to get their own Office XML standard accepted many months after ODF was already declared the standard?
MS was caught sleeping, freaked out, and haphazardly slapped together something as quick as possible. Hence, Office XML was born.
If you want to talk about CRAP, talk about the 15% of Office XML examples in their specification that DON'T EVEN VALIDATE AS VALID XML.
Buried as another mindless MS troll who has no ***** clue where he is in life. - delusr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I love graphs that tell you nothing, whats the yellow line, whats the red line, whats the blue line, WTF?
I love them as much as I love M$ - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Not trembling. Just worried.
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7But then I couldn't digg down his comments
- shakin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Microsoft paid millions to SCO to help them discredit Linux in lawsuits. They may not personally sue, but Microsoft did try the litigation route and it failed.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I think con 5 is actually a pro.
- baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6lots of money to be made from FOSS = service & support, somebody has to maintain those Linux powered servers...
Redhat proves that, among many others... - SmallZee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Its called donations.. and yes, some people work for nothing. Have some pride in what you do.
- turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5EVERYONE knows the difference between a true statistic and a fake one is whether it is present on a graph or not.
- misconstrued, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Your post is actually more interesting than the article...
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5When they own 90% of the market share and corrupt the ISO and the public with FUD, I dare say it's still fun bashing them.
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The only meat in open source is sausage.
- bigburd88, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'm an open source kind of guy, but this article makes no mention of MySQL and in the graph, it conveniently cuts out the part of the graph near the end where Apache (the blue line) loses some market share to IIS (red line). The full graph is at netcraft.com. This sort of stuff makes the non-fanboy OSS advocates like me look bad. SKEWED.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yup..Their stock is static over the past 5 years at least. It looks like it's going to take a hit when the next quarterly report comes out. Corporations ARE leaving MS...They can't support Vista, so they won't.
Hell, I can tell you of a number of MS Gold partners that aren't moving to Vista and have decided to explore Linux because of the total MESS Vista is in the corporate environment. - scooper86, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... plus theres always time for a good bitching
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51. Like what? THe good Free ones are open sources one. So you're just ***** up your argument.
2. Yes, you have more options and more tools that's already been written. Can't generate a report? Use open source one, write your own or ask the boss for a ***** of license to pay for a reporting tool.
3. First of all .NET is a ***** frame work. You are already ***** stupid for saying it's a language. Now go on name other framework that's non-free and available on Windows?
4. No the problem here is that you are so dumb you failed to see that it's not pennies. I know you're probably work at the lowend of tech trying to secure hosting from a remote hosting site, but when you actually host your own site with your own server, it matters especially when you're simply hosting your own internal servers for staff.
5. No its not about whether it is boring or not. It's about the "gotcha" with Ms Licenses.
6. Sure, but when you're on a ***** proprietary platform, getting your job done with open source tools is much more economical and efficient.
7. You already covered. Licensing fees cost ***** load. Do some ***** research and find out the per-seating license for Windows, IIS and SQL Server. In software, everything you pay for is a licensing fee.
I find it so easy to refute your argument. Please work much harder to make them more concrete. Furthermore, I would recommend you to know what you are talking about. You sound more and more idiotic as you desperately trying to sound intuitive. - BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Where's the beef?
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hey IceZZ let's not generalize ok? You are lazy! You don't speak for other people. So please shut up. THank you.
With open source, if something within my expertise that I work on suddenly crashed or did something out of the ordinary, I would look through the code.
Since I look through the code and I know other people also do, that blows your generalization of "People are lazy" out of the water.
I don't give a ***** if you care about open source. Nobody ***** asked you to. You run into one ***** problem and you blame open source instead of the manufacturer of the hardware. The truth is dumbass, drivers problem exists on both Linux and Windows. So don't make it sound like an open source only thing. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Some dvelopers actually rely on donations. Others are being funded by or working for corps.
- gatewarstrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No one directly pays them most of the time. in general the work is contributed freely. Some corporations (Red Hat, Cannonical, Xen Source etc.) pay some of them because they sell support or consultation for the project. Some high profile developers are paid for their work as well and to consult on the projects (I believe Torvalds is in this category). Open source is generally powered by insignificant individual efforts combining into a tidal wave of changes. You don't like how Firefox refresh works? change it, and release the change. That is Open Source. Very few people to my knowledge actually make it their sole career.
There are corporations that are paid to develop open source apps. Possibility Forge is one I know of, they make open medical information systems for hospitals and health departments.
There is also donations. Most all pure open source corporations are non-profit. They rely on donations to keep going.
This system works, especially when people contribute to something that benefits them. Prime example is the founder of Cannonical and Ubuntu: Mark Shuttleworth. Reading his statements about *why* he has put up so much of his own money to fund Ubuntu, he cites the fact that he started out on the back of Linux (slackware, if I recall).
Some other OSS business models: ID software (Quake and Doom) release some of their outdated engines to the community, then they look at hiring programmers who make useful changes.
OSS isn't about the money in general. In the end I use it because I am a control freak, and I can't get that control in proprietary, closed source applications. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Here comes JasonCox. The defender of Microsoft. Trolling the Linux section as per usual. Sorry what was that you said again? Oh Open source software doesn't have quality?
Funny, since we waste time to bitch about MIcrosoft and open source software are still considered superior to Microsoft by the industry, I wonder what happen if we ..... nah. Why bother? It brings trolls like you to conversation and still keep our quality high.
May be if Microsoft actually spend as much time coding quality software instead of spreading FUD and hiring dumbass like you, they'd would actually never have to worry about Linux. - BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9in fairness, that's only a couple projects... OpenSolaris & fooBSD types rarely mention MS
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, and what's wrong with that? Getting paid to write open source software is ultimately the point isn't it?
- blastcube, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4At the end of the article I disagree with his comment, "As more applications become Web-based, there will be less and less reason for people to use Windows or Macintosh desktop computers." There will always be desktop applications! not everyone has 24/7 Internet access, even if you do what happens when the connection drops? Also, I have many computers, most are either Linux PCs or Macs (I do have one XP machine) and the most enjoyable ones to use are the Macs in my house. Maybe Windows market share will drop in the future, but I see the Mac market share growing significantly.
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm really disappointed that "That's what your mom said" wasn't the first comment replying to parent.
- jupi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4my ddwrt doesn't.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Well, first, "crappy" open source code dies off fairly quickly since you can see it first hand and it's open to criticism. With closed source software, you have no idea what's going on.
And yes, those blatant non-validating XML examples WILL have to be fixed. But Microsoft STILL tried to push the specification documentation AS IS for "FAST TRACK APPROVAL" knowing full well it was riddled with errors. That's like handing in a final research paper at school knowing that the bibliography is half done and some of the facts are missing or inaccurate....but you held off until the night before to do it and you just want a grade so you don't care.
And that's my point - Office XML is VERY half assed. If THAT is the best a multi BILLION dollar technology company can come up with, who the hell knows what their closed source code looks like. - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i know you can read my thoughts, boy: meow, meow, meow, meow...
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Do you prefer Bill Gates soft micro-sausage? ;)
- ltmon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The article pretty much hints (obviously) at the main motivation for open source development in the corporate world: selling services.
IBM, for example, puts massive funding into the Linux kernel and other open source projects. They do it because they make gazillions selling servers to run it and consulting services to implement it.
Other open source businesses have different revenue models, but the main one is selling services.
(Oh yeah, and the "movement" is well and truly off the ground already. Has been for years) - Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Microsoft promotes Monopoly. There, I fixed it for you.
- brwright, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12Yeah, I am sure that the $250,000,000,000+ Microsoft is trembling.
- scb0825, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Reading this article made me boot back into Ubuntu since I have finished playing a game. :)
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's volunteers who contribute what they can when they can in exchange for little or nothing, and there's people who are paid to do it. The latter group are the ones behind every major open source project.
- Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm digging you down because you said "*****."
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Debian is all volunteer dev's. And many volunteer dev's contribute to projects being funded/run by major corps. It;s not like there are two classes of developer: the volunteer who writes crappy little programs and the corporate employees who right major programs. There's overlap.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 184 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is