On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:04:43 -0700, Jed Clampett wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is part of an article from Computerworld talking about Open Source. A
> few Linux die-hards think that OpenSource is the answer to everything and to
> ditch Microsoft. Considering most of the business world uses Microsoft
> products and only a few use Open Source, this might be a window as to why
> Open Source hasn't caught on that well.
>
> I am so tired of seeing a few touting the benefits of Ubuntu and Linux over
> Windows. Windows has it's place for most and Linux has it's place for
> others, but to suggest that one ditch Vista or XP in favor of Linux/Ubuntu,
> they are short sighted.
>
> If you want to use Linux/Ubuntu, go ahead, but don't cram it down out
> throats each and every day.
>
> ---------------------------------
> ComputerWorld - Snippit.
>
>
> One of the reasons why free and open-source software development has been
> successful over disparate locations is that the work has been done by the
> users, and these developer-users determine the functionality, Herbsleb said.
>
> "Because work is done by the users, they're more likely to get the
> functionality right, so a major class of errors is eliminated," he noted,
> adding that developers of commercial software are rarely users of the
> software, and the functionality is determined by project managers.
>
> "Project managers tend to understand purchasing designs -- why companies buy
> software -- so they'll build a project that plays into those hands,"
> Herbsleb explained. This means that commercial software can be created
> without fully meeting user requirements. Because free and open-source
> software developers are its users, they create the functions they
> specifically need.
>
> But one of the drawbacks to the open-source software development model is
> that mainstream users often get left behind because the really technical
> people create the software design functionality for themselves, not for the
> average user. The geek creed -- "If you can't install it, you don't deserve
> to use it" -- is still alive in many open-source projects, said Nancy
> Frishberg who works on user-centered software design in the software
> division at Sun Microsystems Inc.
>
> As a result, "it is sometimes said [that lack of] usability is the Achilles'
> heel of open source," said Steve Easterbrook, associate professor in the
> department of computer science and associate director of the Knowledge and
> Media Institute at the University of Toronto.
> Sun's Frishberg added that the open-source mantra that "everyone can
> contribute" is actually misleading because adding to an open-source project
> is basically limited to code, bugs and patches.[/color]

Well I must have one of the most computer illiterate (rest assured that I
am not exaggerating, this guy could crash notepad by looking at
it) co-workers at my work and he uses Ubuntu and assorted Open Source
software at home on his laptop all day long without even the slightest
hint of a problem.

While yes, I have seen Open Source projects that were horrible to use, I
have also seen commercial projects that are horrible to use. I've also
seen absolutely great Open Source projects that are easy to use as well as
commercial projects that are a pleasure to use.

So a blanket statement that says "Commercial Good", "Open Source Bad" is
incorrect either way. Both have their places, both have their pros and
cons, both have their good and bad projects/software/solutions.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから