What is Digg?58 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Open Source is NOT superior to closed source. There is a place for both. Each one has REALLY SERIOUS weakness, and each one has very important strengths. Numerous pieces of open source software will never match the quality of certain commercial programs, and many commercial closed source programs will find it difficult to keep up with their open source equivalents.
Open source will NEVER die. Not EVER. Why? Because ANYONE can participate. It's an awesome way for aspiring programmers and students to get into the profession, to build something from scratch and then show it off to potential employers. How could this ever die? The highly promoted and hyped "movement" of open source enthusiasts MIGHT die (highly unlikely), but the existence of these projects, and the continued growth of this thing, will NEVER die. - RyanJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Quote:
Open Source is NOT superior to closed source. There is a place for both. Each one has REALLY SERIOUS weakness
I agree and dissagree. Open Source is developed faster, bugs fixed faster and features are added faster. Although motivation can die down with time because the people are not paid.
But on the whole I agree with what you said, if Open Source went away we'd all have to rely on MS servers and no PHP - the web would be a much worse place.
Long live Open Source, typical of Mastertech to hate something non-Microsoft...
Dugg+
Ryan Jones - RyanJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RE: noelsusman (However, Firefox is not as secure as people think it is. It's the same argument that Macs are more secure than Windows.)
Not at all, hackers not only target the majority targets they also attack those programs that claim to be secure in order to prove them-selves, as of yet there have been no vruses that exploit Firefox even though hackers still continue to try. With open source there are so many people looking at the code that these things can be fixed before the hackers can find a way to exploit them and that mkae it far more secure :)
Ryan Jones - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Open source is capable of vast progress, just look at Mozilla and the work they have done to create Firefox out of Netscape. The vast majority of people who bash open source products have no idea of how the opensource model works, they instead operate on some unfounded preconceived notion that it is some how bad. These people are the people I hate most, those that make authoritive opiniated statements without a true indepth knowledge of the facts and details or a realisation of the effect that any article posted on the 'net can have on other similarly-uneducated people.
People should know the facts, all sides to the stories, before they form opinions or make decisions. Sadly, sites like the two mentioned in this article present only one side of the story - and that side is enough to sway many who know no better. - CreativeGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This story sounds familiar. Surely radio will die when TV catches on. Surely Print advertising & direct mail will die when the internet catches on. Surely Apple will go out of business any day now. Blah, blah, blah.
Open Source has its place, and it has secured that place for a long, long time. - f00xx0riz3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is lame. Why is this ***** on the frontpage of digg?? Who digged this?! WTF!
- TROGDOR42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ten bucks say this guy works for Microsoft.
- LiquidRain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stopped reading when he spelled "lose" "loose."
- onanobj, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2I've been reading digg for a month and finally signed up for an account just so I could comment on this post.
SpiralMH, you are an idiot. You may be very nice and have lots of other redeeming qualities, but clearly that list does not include reading comprehension or grammar.
You said this about the page you linked to: "According to this website Open Source is crap and should die and FireFox isn't as secure as it claims to be." This description is as close as possible to being the complete opposite of what that page is about. The author of that page is criticizing two blogs that are negative about Open Source software, and he goes so far as to call them "...worth less than the disk space they consume..."
Please leave the Internet and go back to doing whatever 9 year old kids used to do before they were able to spew random nonsense onto the screens of a thousand strangers.
The rest of you - the ones who knee-jerk digged this story - SHAME ON YOU.
This kind of crap is why digg will ultimately fail. It's too democratic and is ruled by the lowest common denominator: people with too much time and too little sense.
Good day. - Luftwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's some atrocious grammar in the headline. Embarassingly bad.
- fukizzat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MS-free since 2003!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Hey retards... if it wasnt for OPENSOURCE software like BIND(dns), Sendmail, NCSA Mosaic, Gopher, etc you people would NOT BE HERE BITCHING on the internet, you would still be dialing up to a BBS where you communicate only with people in your own neigbhorhood.
Open Source built the internet, anyone who thinks its going away can't see more than 2inches past the monitor for their Windows95 PeeCee.
. - Ratty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From the server the article is on:
Server: Apache
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11 - TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0He's mainly talking about things under the GNU license, right?
I prefer Creative Commons, anywho. - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OpenSource won't die as long as their are people out there willing to contribute. OpenSource is one of the greatest ideas thought of. Its secure, stable, free, open, and most of the time better built than most closed source apps. live on opensource!
- zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Open Source is developed faster, bugs fixed faster and features are added faster. Although motivation can die down with time because the people are not paid."
That's usually the case for short bursts of time for the great majority of open source projects (there are MANY notable exceptions, but there are MANY MANY more open source projects that periodically stagnate), as there is generally no ongoing incentive for the volunteer developers to volunteer their time. I wouldn't categorically say sweeping statements that open source is built and fixed faster. - MrFlibble1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Its a troll. No digg.
- CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The anti-GNU movement link is probably the stupidest, most poorly thought-out, illogical piece of writing that I have ever read.
It's simply incredible how deluded some people can be. - flipper5311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why open source must die when they are on open source server???
- SpiralMH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Btw Mastertechs website does run on OpenSource. His free hosting provider runs on a Netscape System. Oh and his forum/messageboard runs on OpenSource!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How did this make it to the front page with 28 diggs in almost EIGHT hours?
- teece, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Would it be so much to ask that Digg front page stories have at least a *semi-coherent* write-up?
I mean, come on people. - Zorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I look forward to the day when OpenSource eclipses proprietry software (even though I'm a solid Mac User). I believe fully in the democratization of technology. This will require greater emphasis upon security and privacy, and customizability for the end user (FF and the plethora of extensions being a good example). As people become more technologically literate, they will also (hopefully) take more responsibility with their own security and privacy.
- Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did anyone actually read the article? The title is "Open source must die die die", yet all it really is is him talking about how 2 sites complaing how OSS sucks, and blatently bias...
- baggins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> I prefer Creative Commons, anywho.
Two different things entirely. The CC license covers things like writing and artistic works. The GPL (GNU isn't a license - it's a set of programs) is a license that covers things like software. - SpiralMH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah but his site is supporting them and he even implys that he does through out the article and at the bottom as well.
- crythias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess it would be too much to ask that the commenters actually read the article. Actually, it seems that it'd be too much for the submitter to read the article...
The author of the article notes that there are sites that state myths that open source "fanatics" "say" and then spend time "debunking" them. Funny, the author of the article might easily have pointed to the comments section of this digg and validated his point quickly. - MisterFlibble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mastertech/Andrew, like a lot of people, seems to have taken the poster's word for it that this article is against open source and supports his article. (You might be forgiven for thinking that just from the title.) Looks like he dugg it and posted it on his own forum:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=1170
Doh!
"Firefox Myths – is truly outstanding for being completely ludicrous." is what the blog actually says about it. - SpiralMH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mastertech why how nice of you to drop by. Obviously so many people here have disagreed with you and more will continue to. Keep posting your false myths and you will continue to just be owned.
Mastertech = Andrew - SpiralMH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh well either way Mastertech supports it even if he didn't read that article. He's a 41 year old male that likes to spam peoples forums.
- MisterFlibble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mastertech, I think you lost a thread from your forum:
http://www.standards.spiralmindsinc.com/misc/Priceless/ - Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL! I can see why he might hate Firefox. Main reason: AdBlock extension.
Kiss those annoying assinine flash ads goodbye! I open the link using Firefox
and I see the article, I open it with IE and see a barrage of ads. I put his rants
in the same catagory as Jack Thompson's. - RyanJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ah, more Mastertech SPAM
Fable (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology, usually widely believed but possibly just pulled out of one person's butt. While Firefox is a decent Web Browser, there are numerous Fables I spread around the Internet regarding it just so I can debunk them. Hopefully if I advertise this on every technology-related message board on the Internet under a dozen or so different names (listed at the top of this page), enough people will click on my ads to make me filthy rich.
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/
Ryan Jones - mexter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interestingly, I tried opening the anti-Firefox site in IE, and got a series of errors. Irony?
- nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I liked reading through both of the sites mentioned in that article. This is not to say that either of them are correct in their assertions but the open-source community has armies of idiots making just as ridiculous claims daily (many on Digg). It's about time the same B.S. gets thrown the other way.
- Wires, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't find this article particularly "Holy mother of pearl, what did he just say?" He voiced his opinion over a flattened issue, x versus y, moving on.
- Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I did read the article, I do find it amusing. I must apologize, my comments were for the two blogs he speaks of, not the initial article.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have been developed on open source platforms for 11 years, and I can tell you that is has its advantages and absolutely has some drawbacks. Whoever says 'open source has proven to be successful in every way' is as closed minded as any M$ marketing manager.
- adrianguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thats stupid.
- SpiralMH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0QUOTE:
SpiralMH, you are an idiot. You may be very nice and have lots of other redeeming qualities, but clearly that list does not include reading comprehension or grammar.
You said this about the page you linked to: "According to this website Open Source is crap and should die and FireFox isn't as secure as it claims to be." This description is as close as possible to being the complete opposite of what that page is about. The author of that page is criticizing two blogs that are negative about Open Source software, and he goes so far as to call them "...worth less than the disk space they consume..."
noonjab if you read my last comment it said i misread the site and apologize for it. The purpose for posting this article is to point out that htis site is reporting on those two sites. And in the description where it says "Masterech agrees with them" I was talking about the things they listed that those two sites mentioned he agrees with. Please next time read through the comments carefully. Also if you read my first comment you can clearly tell I'm not 9 or under. I am moderator/admin at hosting company called Spiral Minds Hosting. Hece why I created this username for both myself and the hosting company. Any ways everyone keep discussing I like the points a lot of you are making. - skeet07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree with noonjab. C'mon read the article and not the crappy description placed a top.
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0ohh yea and openssl ^^^
- firehydra2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Hmm, I must disagree with this guy.
Most of the world's servers run Apache, and the internet didn't explode because of them, did they?
I must agree that the philosophy is very left, but I don't like the idea of having the right control our software. The Open Source philosophy was made to counter the corporations' control.
Firefox owns IE. No need for explanation there other than the fact that IE is a ***** viral incubator).
And not all opensourced software is professional quality. It's made by volunteers. But to have a huge collaboration of prospective programmers working together to make something better than what a few overworked coders can do is worth everything.
Good try, but I think that essay sucks... - brandonb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I wipe my ass on stories like this.
- SpiralMH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I just reread the article again and they are talking about those two sites. The reason I have posted this is because of the fact that these two sites think OS and Firefox are crap. And I misread the ending when he said "If you believe them, well, you're free to choose, as long as you don't choose to try to dictate my decisions.". But it's mainly posted because of those two sites. Hope it makes sense now.
- magebomb11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0poorly designed page/article. no digg.
- kitejumping, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0if everyone has reported this as lame / spam why is this still here?
- noelsusman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Open Source should not die. It is the perfect place for any programmer to make their mark and for any computer owner to receive wonderful software.
However, Firefox is not as secure as people think it is. It's the same argument that Macs are more secure than Windows. The only reason Windows is so unsecure is that it has a huge majority of the users so every hacker out there trys to find exploits and write viruses for Windows, not Macs. It's the same thing with IE and Firefox. While Firefox is definitely more secure, if it ever had the majority of the user base then it would be exploited just as much as IE is now.
It makes you think about if you ever want Firefox to become that popular. - barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0did anyone even read the article?
- just2digg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Huh?
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is