What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
39 Comments
- roguedragon, on 12/28/2007, -3/+19Open Source has a flexibility to adapt, innovate and respond in ways that proprietary vendors can't begin to touch. There's also a lot more freedom involved in open source too that you'll never see in a corporate development environment.
- Cannon590A, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9A very good read, and the author makes a good point. Just another incentive to support free and open source software.
- Fratz, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6You're making sweeping statements as if you have a lot of experience, but it comes across that you have very narrow experience. There are plenty of overpriced commercial offerings in the realm of CRM, Revision Control, Configuration Management, and thin client / server setups that it is _very_ easy to port the legacy commercial system and retrain the entire user base and still save money. I worked at a Fortune 50 company that licensed several overpriced products in the above categories, and they truly were bug-ridden and barely usable, but corporate inertia and fear of the unknown prevented the decision-makers from doing anything else.
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7"what the Free Software Movement lacks, is a quandary of talented designers."
I don't think that means what you think it means. - sirhomer, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Beats having to pay close to nine digits to build a new system.
- UKsHaDoW, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Pernally I don't think the GIMP UI was that bad. I think its the people who are like "omg this isn't nothing like photoshop" who are complaining. When you move to new program you have to learn how to use it. Just like how you learned to use photoshop. Bottom line is Its not a clone of ps.
- UKsHaDoW, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4I've studied interface desgin(HCI) and I contribute to open source.
- drlog, on 12/28/2007, -4/+8Depends on the temperature and pressure.
You suck - StanStutter, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Put some beano on that brain-fart. I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
- sirhomer, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4I don't think you know what the word "annum" means.
- rotten777, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Yeah because I know a lot of people still using 31 year old computers today............................................................
- TheMachine1, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Have you ever installed Ubuntu? It a simple install that works out of the box.
- javaroast, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Some many erroneous statements so little time...
I think you'll find that most bankrupt corporations HAVE been run by a Professional CEO and ironically the richest man in the world started as a computer programmer. For many years he ran a company that turned out to be one of the most profitable companies in our time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
I'm not exactly sure what the "real world of commercial reality" is, but I think you'll find that most large businesses use a blend of off the shelf software and in-house developed software. You admit as much when you discuss replacing turnkey Unix systems with Linux. You'll also see Open Source software being used as "off the shelf" software. See apache, bind, and mysql if you want examples. There are many more, but that will give you a good start.
As for Windows being imbecile proof and just working... well if this were the case Lavasoft, Trend and Symantec would likely have no reason to exist. The reality of the situation is some MS software is good, some not so much. Your comparison between setting up Windows and setting up Ubuntu is simply ridiculous. It is good to know though that if I use Windows that I can finally lead a "fulfilling life." - controltheweb, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Open source UI's are coming along fine, it just take a whole lot longer. There are some great UIs for GIMP coming out and improving all the time.
- Craga89, on 12/28/2007, -6/+8The only thing Open Source lacks, or more to the point, what the Free Software Movement lacks, is a quandary of talented designers. So many a time I've seen a powerful OSS application, with a terrible UI (GIMP anyone?) which, with a bit of polish and usability improvement, could easily match any of its proprietary counterparts. Saying that, there are quite a few OSS applications which have great UI's, Amarok for one, but sadly they are few and far between.
- StanStutter, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2It's probably been awhile since you used GIMP. I'm using 2.4.2 and the interface is pretty good. The user interface for Amarok is pretty good too, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's great.
- Gman1223, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I said the UI sucks, not the style. Lets talk about things like menu layout, dialogs etc...
- frazras, on 12/28/2007, -1/+32007 - 1980 != 31
2007 - 1980 < 31
2007 - 1980 = 27
And they are 27 thats why they are being changed - jhshukla, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2bad example. it was the design decision that caused Linux/Unix/etc to not have Y2K problem. it had nothing to do with OSS vs CSS.
- kazamx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1This is a spam link
- GrantRobertson, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1While this is a good read, the article talks about how quickly OSS developers can updated software, not how flexible OSS software can be. I would like to see a follow up article that is really about the flexibility of the movement, how new innovations can be incorporated easily, and how this spurs even more innovation.
- mancat, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1Oh, you can count, but you missed the point: There are lots of generationally ancient systems still in operation to this day.
- nonchallant0819, on 01/26/2008, -0/+0S?
R? - mancat, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Automation systems around the world are being run by 31 year old computers.
Just last year my company pulled out old Siemens automation control gear for container vessels, circa 1980. - sirhomer, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1The GIMP UI is designed around the concept of virtual desktops and dual monitors. MDI UIs suck nuts in these situations. If you want a ***** MDI based UI check out GimpShop.
- rotten777, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1No it isn't. I love Ubuntu, don't get me wrong, but it isn't.
- JQP123, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2"You can take dog ***** and make it into cookie shapes, but the fact is, its still *****."
Many of the fans here think that Open Source's ***** doesn't stink. - Gman1223, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1That was... Quite uncalled for, lol. The Gimp UI does in fact, suck. It's very inconsistent, clunky and unintuitive. Its just unusable. You can take dog ***** and make it into cookie shapes, but the fact is, its still *****.
- Craga89, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1There's no need to get upset baalzebub, I was simply stating my personal view, one which a lot of other users, except yourself of course, agree with. It's not about being unadaptive. I'm sure if I used GIMP enough I would get used to its interface, just like I did with blender and many other tools with have a learning curve to their UI. My point is that although I _could_ adapt, I shouldn't really have to, since the UI should be intuitive enough to pick up on straight away or atleast after a few uses. This links in with my "usability improvement" comment, as the more intuitive the UI, the more usable it is for everyday and veteran users alike.
- baalzebub, on 12/28/2007, -5/+3you both show what unadaptable idiots you are, if you cant get used to using The Gimp then WTF are you doing here, why aren't you vegetating in front of a television with your bowl of cheetos and wondering why your fingers are orange colored, while your ms-windows pc is being used as a remote spambot when you are not slobbering all over the monitor while looking at porn...
- critthinker, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1I am a professional business applications computer programmer and I own my own software company, and even though I use open source and I know it is good for some things (i.e. sever applications), it pales in comparison to software products that non-technical people need and for which are willing to pay money to use (i.e. desktop applications).
The reason that most OSS pales in comparison to most paid software should be OBVIOUS, we have more MONEY to pay the other professionals involved in making a software product, who are NOT computer programmers!
For example look at the horrible user Interface and help documentation that comes with GIMP compared with Photoshop, does anyone other than a "programming geek" believe that a professional photographer would use rather use GIMP over Photoshop?
The makers of Photoshop pay focus groups, usability experts, professional writers, acceptance testers and others, to create the complete software package which is more than just the computer code!
When people buy my business applications they are paying for the business knowledge that goes into my software applications that "programming geeks" alone do not understand and who rely on business requirements that are incomplete and faulty, but they do not know that, since they are not working along paid business experts who can tell them what is wrong with the requirements!
Another example is how most OSS applications make users edit text files with arcane properties just to configure an application!
Microsoft will never loose the desktop to OSS because the people involved are "technical" people and not "business" people, and they just do not understand that it takes more than good programming to make a great application, and I should know because I am both a "technical" person who can sling code with the best OSS people, but I am also a "business" person who understands that applications without intuitive user interfaces and professional written help in ordinary English just plain SUCK! - multiquote, on 12/28/2007, -4/+1If anyone is into online chat there's a new chat site similar to Yahoo Chat called OohYa Chat that is built using open source such as joomla at http://www.oohya.net. Just another thing to show that open source is the future, especially with Google turning out some really good open source apps the web can only benefit from it.
- Cannon590A, on 12/28/2007, -8/+4Agreed, the interface to GIMP is awful.
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -6/+1"There's also a lot more freedom involved in open source too that you'll never see in a corporate development environment."
Exactly. Thats the same kind of freedom Ron Paul believes in. Let the freedom of the constitution decide everything. - coleki, on 12/28/2007, -8/+2in other news, water is a liquid!
- qwuinc, on 12/28/2007, -10/+3"Linux isn't Y2K(38) compatible. As of right now this is a non-issue as 64 bit Linux will resolve this completely by the time it actually becomes an issue."
Uh-oh. What about legacy file formats, file systems, etc? I guess by 2038 we are hopefully using new and shiney things, but the problem is not as shallow as some people make it out to be.
Anyway, I think the article brings up the biggest difference between proprietary and free software solutions - when the vendor decides to drop support because it's not financially feasible, customers are left stranded. When same happens with free software, the source is out there for anyone to fix it. - CondoleezzaRice, on 12/28/2007, -11/+1RON PAUL 2008! http://donate2008.org/
- fkr3, on 12/28/2007, -12/+2"When same happens with free software, the source is out there for anyone to fix it."
And then the company has to invest a massive amount of resources into maintaining legacy applications until they can be arsed migrating. Lucky the source is available so they can drop close to 6 digits a programmer on maintaining it! - inactive, on 12/28/2007, -15/+1If you want to bankrupt a business promote a computer programmer to the position of CEO. Professional CEO's make a profit for the corporation; computer programmers spend money on ego trips and not in the client's interest.
People work so that they can feed themselves and their families. It is called food, shelter, clothing. Work means earning a living, getting paid for your services. Open Source may be free software. Who is going to pay who to set up an open source system?
A good programmer earns from $100k to $150K per annum; a mediocre programmer works for $20 per hour because he is unemployed. Multiply the annual income by 3 for a charge out rate which includes overheads like rent, office workers, furniture, etc, etc.
Open Source may be free software until a problem arises; then and only then will you realise how expensive that piece of free software will cost you. Red Hat charges approximately $1000 per annum per machine for support. A high speed server will cost $10,000 per hour in lost revenue when it fails. $1000 to Red Hat to fix the problem is nothing. The only people who baulk at the cost is Ubuntu noobs on digg.
In the real world of commercial reality, businesses use off the shelf commercial software because it is cost effective. If the commercial software had as many bugs as diggers complain about; that company would be bankrupt overnight.
Microsoft and Adobe are where they are because the software works out of the box. Ubuntu users are too stingy to buy software and will spend 100's of hours setting up a system where XP or Vista will work out of the box, is flexible, imbecile proof and just works. Ubuntu users get a high watching a spinning 3D cube; Windows users earn a living from their computer and live fulfilling lives.
The only place where open source works effectively is in large turnkey Unix systems being converted to Linux. Then you will have at least two programmers on $150K per annum to administer and debug programming modifications to the system.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is