Mighty broad brush there, mate.
Though this is OT, i've got to say first off that my own open source
code doesn't suck monkey balls or donkey dicks, and it's rather well
documented too. I just had a great chat with a guy who makes some
open apps and code and his stuff is just amazingly brilliantly
beautiful and well made. It actually made me happy to just use it.
I've not seen such elegance in many, if any, code-for-pay products.
As I'm headed into much production and release-of-stuff now with
Other People's Code, I think it's maybe a 70/30 mix of open source
and proprietary stuff. The commercial libs have tonnes of problems
too. In one particularly memorable case the commercial push means the
products' abilities were dramatically overstated and deficiencies
that I surmised almost instantly, were papered-over. A chat with the
lead developer confirmed everything, as in "I'm a systems builder. So
are you. We both know you can't optimize (x) to get the results you
claim." He: "Yeah, (our code is) terrible at that" You won't have
that so much with good open source code.
I prefer to use code designed by good designers, and implemented by
good coders, with a license I can stomach (and afford). Open, closed,
whatever, I don't care. Just gimme the goods.
obligatory meaningless dig: Apple's Java has some longstanding bugs
that the Apple Java developer community identified and could have
fixed aeons ago if the sources had been available. Now that Sun's
are, Apple's are not.
On Jan 26, 2007, at 2:29 AM, stephen white wrote:
On 26/01/2007, at 5:15 AM, Beau Gunderson wrote:
"Apple CEO Steve Jobs stated emphatically that despite its OS X
roots,
the Apple iPhone would be closed to third-party apps, remarking, "You
The quote is not the full story. Steve Jobs has also made it clear
that third-parties can develop for the iPhone, just that Apple will
have a certification process to ensure that applications meet
minimum standards. It isn't about making excuses for a $500
brick... it's the simple fact that open source software sucks dead
dogs balls when it comes to the basic essentials like polish,
presentation and documentation.
In the woodshed, open source is great because you can grab that bit
of wood, this bit of iron, and whap together something that works
like a table even though it doesn't much look like one. For things
that are used every day, something better is desirable. Apple
provides the excessive and obsessive effort for minor things that
don't achieve much purpose but has the polish and care to make
boring jobs easier.
I've used Linux since 0.011a, I've built entire systems with open
source software, but I'm not a fanboy and I know where things have
their weak points and strong points. It annoys me to see people
claiming that anyone who likes Apple gear is a mindless fanboy who
makes excuses left right and centre for their Numero Uno God, Steve
"God" Jobs (God). It's really about the fact that process is
followed, with change control, documentation, and clear design.
The fact is that I wouldn't be able to do my work without the
documentation that Apple provide and nobody in open source can be
bothered doing. Ever tried finding information about PAM_LDAP? Ever
tried to program Gtk widgets with vague notes from an autistic
savant from several versions ago? Where's a good book that
describes the current Linux kernel (not 10 years ago).
There is a breaking point where ideals hit the fan, and "get it
done" is more important. Open source doesn't do the job.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
