Well, I believe most --if not all-- successful Open Source projects have succeded because they've managed tu put together great software, just as good or superior to their closed source or commercial counterparts (and available for free). Think firefox, SVN, apache, etc, etc, etc.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Cheers Juan Pablo Califano 2009/3/28 strk <[email protected]> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 04:11:43PM -0300, Juan Pablo Califano wrote: > > >>> > > Generally speaking free software development has often > > less resources, so it's easier for a content producer to > > be friendly with free software that the other way around. > > >>> > > > > I think that sums up the problem here. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but what > > you're expecting is not realistic: you're almost asking developers to > lower > > the bar to accommodate to a product basically out of pity. It’s not a > > sustainable model. > > Not *almost*, I'm indeed asking developers who think free software > matters to lower that bar. > > It's an ecological approach to technology. > In a sustainable model you don't want to depend on out-of-control > or poorly available resources. Open source puts the resources in > the people hands, so if you want to rely on your own resources > you will want to reduce your dependencies. > > Think power. If you want to use your own solar power you'll have > to reduce your power consumption. That's sustainability. > > --strk; > > Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer () ASCII Ribbon Campaign > http://foo.keybit.net/~strk/services.html /\ Keep it simple! > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org >
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
