I think the major point is: a closed product is depending on a company. if that company decides to stop support, or do any else bad decistion, you're finished. With open source, you can at last do it yourself, but also (and better) pay any other company or single developer to help you. In a closed product, you can be stuck with bugs that company don't want to fix (this is a real case with ms office), while in an open one you can DIY (or get it done by someone else, same as above).
On 8 Gen, 11:27, Lee Bolding <l...@leesbian.net> wrote: > I think these days, the line between open source and "closed" source > is somewhat blurred - and this is a good thing. > > You now have "premium open source" - with the likes of RHEL, SugarCRM, > MySQL and Magento. Microsoft technologies are no longer exclusively > closed - I'm currently working with a team of 9 .net/wpf/silverlight > developers that are all using open source technology, along with big > ticket items such as BizTalk. Pragmatism at it's best - using the > correct tool for the job. > > MySQL may be free, but my database on this project is going to have > half a billion rows - I can't see relying on community support for > solving scalability issues to be clever - intact, it's a massive risk > on the project risk register. Luckily, as I mentioned already - there > are MySQL professional services. > > The whole IIS/windows server licensing issue is also beginning to > disappear - if you want a well supported, enterprise grade, stable and > scalable PHP environment, you'll likely want Zend Server - which costs > around the same as a Windows Server license. Apache, lighttp, nginx > etc are all free, but who actually supports them? If your server goes > bump in the night, who you gonna call? > > As always, you get what you pay for. This is true regardless of open > source vs "closed". If you do open source on the cheap you'll get bad > coders that will produce crap, then disappear. Spend more and you'll > get a better application, that requires less maintenance and because > it's built well, easier to maintain and the developers won't disappear > because they're terrified of supporting their own bad code. > > Open source vs closed? IMHO, makes no difference unless you hire bad > developers or are unable to maintain a good relationship with your > developers. > > Sent from my iWheel > > On 8 Jan 2010, at 08:46, Parijat Kalia <kaliapari...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > Just lighting up everyone's day, would like to get as many as > > possible arguments on this. Me and a friend of mine, had a debate > > last evening, about open source(PHP) vs closed source technologies > > (DOT NET).He raised the following points: > > > 1. He feels that open source is not reliable whereas closed source > > is. The logic being that, once the application is developed and > > sold, if it runs into some kind of a bug or an error, there is > > support team for closed source technologies who are going to come > > and help you fix it, whereas this is not a guarantee in open source > > technologies. > > > 2. Development for a successful open source technology is community > > dependent, implying the choice is still on a faithful group of > > users, whereas in closed source technologies it is more reliable > > because it is being backed by a company (microsoft for .NET and SAP > > for SAP). f > > > 3. The third point that was raised is, closed source technologies > > enforce quality control as opposed to open source technologies, > > where the onus on quality control in case of the latter, is more on > > the developer himself. > > > The reasoning I could offer was that big companies such as Yahoo > > ( symfony), facebook (php), and Twitter (rails) rely on open source > > technologies, surely they are aware of the above points but still > > choose to go with open source rather than closed source > > technologies. Money is not the most important criteria for these > > companies, and there definitely is a better reason why they choose > > open rather than closed source technologies. > > > However, it is still not convincing me for I found myself agreeing > > to the points my friend raised in favor of closed source > > technologies. Can anyone shed a light on this? > > > Thanks!!! > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "symfony users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to symfony-us...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > symfony-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/symfony-users?hl=en > > .
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony users" group. To post to this group, send email to symfony-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to symfony-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-users?hl=en.
