Roman Kennke wrote:
That whole discussion is probably interesting but mostly pointless. Both
approaches (closed and open) apparently tend to produce relatively high
quality code (or really crappy code, happens in both camps), where with
the closed approach the developers (or vendors) have to take over 100%
responsibility (because the end user has no way to interact with the
development),
That's an odd thing to say. I don't know why you might think that closed
source developers have any
less customer contact that open source developers. It's true that many
closed source shops
have some buffer(s) between the software developer and the end user, and
in those cases
I guess the issue is whether that's a plus or a minus.
which usually makes things very formal and slow, where the
open approach relies very much on the end users reporting problems.
Again, I don't know why you'd think that closed source doesn't do the same.
In
most active projects these are fixed really quickly, giving both the
developers and the end users a warm fuzzy feeling ;-)
A quick fix (except for something completely trivial) always gives me a
nervous feeling, not warm and fuzzy.
Maybe I'm in the minority there, and it probably is related to working
on projects where the customer
is not a forgiving software-developer-type.
Labelling FOSS as
playground for bored developers is, uhm, strange.
That was a response to the claim:
Classpath bugs don't
have such administration issues due to
its longer history as a FOSS project and existing community-oriented fun
development paradigm.
So I'm summarizing "fun development paradigm" as "developer playground".
