spin
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Feb 05, 2007 4:49 AM EDT |
The article is quite interesting to read, but contains the usual anti-FLOSS spin: "If you choose to use FLOSS, support is not guaranteed. The project might fall to pieces any moment, and when it does you're screwed." While these arguments have some merit, this article as others before it, miss out on comparing FLOSS with non-free software in similar scenarios. Think about it: You decide to license some non-free software in order to do some stuff in your business. Perhaps you even pay them some more money for support and consluting, as well. Suddenly, the company you licensed the software from (and paid good money to) goes out of business, abandons the product, files for bankruptcy, you name it. There you are then, having to rely on some software you won't get support for because nobody in the world has a clue about its internals. All you can do is either to pay even more money migrating to another solution, abandon the project altogether, or keep using the software without support until bit-rot kills it off for good. My point is: The risk of any particular software project shutting down doesn't apply to FLOSS only, it can and does happen with non-free software, as well. However, with FLOSS you'll have the source code no matter what happens. Even if the original developers of that piece of software have vanished you can still fix things yourself, or pay someone else to fix it. With non-free software, you're screwed. Journalists writing these kind of articles don't mention that very often, do they? |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 05, 2007 5:31 AM EDT |
A good quote I read somewhere: "A FOSS application stops being supported when there is nobody in the entire world interested in it anymore". |
| NicholasDonovan Feb 05, 2007 6:34 AM EDT |
I believe that the major benefit of OpenSource is the fact that it reflects the scientific method. The natural Darwinian nature of the projects will help ensure that those strong enough will survive and those that are not will not. It seems so simple but when you contrast that from the crap that is thrust on the general public as software from closed source companies, you see that much of the close source 'products' should have never made it into the hands of the public and were they subject to that same scientific methodology, they would have never made it. Incidentally, this parallel can be found in other endeavors as well including the practice of medicine. When ever you close off true empirical analysis for the sake of the almighty commercial dollar, patients suffer. Dr. Nick |
| incinerator Feb 05, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
"those strong enough will survive and those that are not will not."
Yes, in a way, but.
First of all, how do you measure that strength? Technical quality, bugs per KLOC, how many platforms does it run on?
It's not that simple, different people will choose different software for different reasons. They might not even be aware of the "best choice". I mean the author has point here: If you are the CIO (or simply the IT d00d in charge) in a company and it's up to you to decide which software to use in order to solve a particular problem, would you go use software that's only developed by one single programmer, for instance? On the other hand, commiting limited resources might give that struggling FLOSS project the small boost it needs to prosper, just image that one programmer getting helped out by one full-time employee who's been allocated by aforementioned CIO to support that piece of FLOSS software they're using in that particular project. With the source code available under a free/libre license that one programmer can make a big difference, commiting fixes, adding features etc. This makes even small FLOSS projects more attractive to pick up and use that software. But that's something those clueless IT journalists still stuck in the 20st century cannot get to understand, and that's why they write articles like that. |
| tuxchick Feb 05, 2007 8:16 AM EDT |
Don't forget that the failure rate for proprietary commercial software is very high. As the OP mentioned, with FOSS the code remains available. Of course, given the low-quality of most proprietary software, losing the code may not be such a bad thing. :) >First of all, how do you measure that strength? Easy. When you want something that you can deploy right away, look for projects that have strong development and user communities. Giving baby projects a boost is an investment in the future, not for someone who needs a solution right now. |
| dcparris Feb 05, 2007 2:43 PM EDT |
Too bad we haven't lose the code for Windows! :-D |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!