Mark Newton wrote:
> I get concerned that those who point to a lack of a QA cycle in open
> source software are missing the point entirely: They're focussing on
> the 'process' they're familiar with so much that they don't seem to
> acknowledge that alternative approaches can demonstrate similar results.
We open source zealots "know" this, but still it would nice to
be able to point to some empirical data -- has anybody done a
PhD thesis on it? If not, what are all the students waiting
for?
> At the end of the day, the track record of major open-source projects
> speaks for itself: Yes, there are bugs, but there are bugs in commercial
> software which is shaped and bounded by QA procedures as well. Overall,
> though, I'd hazard a guess that open-source software is generally more
> reliable (it is in my experience, anyway).
Again, that's the common experience, but it's easier to have the
experience you expect when you're not constrained by facts. I'd
love to see some good statistics. After all, open source people
didn't get the chance to have the Ariane-5 disaster, so our
ability to point to an empty set of such examples doesn't really
prove anything.
I'm a True Believer in the open source / free software gospel,
but it would be easier to win these arguments if only we had the
data.
--
Greg Black
ech`echo xiun | tr nu oc | sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
