On Thu, September 22, 2005 6:55 am, keithleng wrote:
> okay. My last comment on the "enthusiastic amateur" remark. I'm sure
> there are some very talented people working on the SB. People who are,
> or could easily become, "professionals" if they so desired. I also feel
> that there will be people who are contributing/have contributed to the
> project who do not fall into that category.
>
> My remarks were based solely on my perception of the software. I do not
> feel that it is anywhere near as robust as one is entitled to expect of
> software bundled with a piece of expensive audio equipment. I believe
> that if this software had designed, managed and built in-house by, say,
> Apple, it would be a lot better than it is today.
>
> This is not intended as a troll. It's the opinion I would give if a
> friend considering buying a SB were to ask me my opinion. I would love
> to be able to say that it's given me hours of trouble-free enjoyment.
> Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I will take you at your word that you did not intend to disparage the
SlimServer developers, but I also continue to disagree about your
assertion that commercial software is of general higher quality than open
source software.
I do *not* think that had SlimServer had been designed, managed, and built
in-house by Apple that you would have a higher quality product. On the
other hand, I do believe that if that were the case you would have
software that would run only on Mac OS and Windows, and that it would play
only MP3 and AAC, and that you would have the same stupid DRM system as
iTunes, and that you would have nowhere near the number of configuration
options to tune the software to your needs, and you wouldn't have the
source code. And while you may not care to personally browse the source
code and submit patches or bug reports, think about the number of people
that do, and the number of bugs that have been fixed by such direct user
involvement.
Sure, Apple has a QA department and generally produces fairly high quality
software, but don't think of them as some kind of ivory tower institution
that houses the world's most ingenious software developers (that would be
Google. ;-) ) I've already mentioned in my previous message that many,
perhaps most, contributors to open source projects *are* professional
software developers who happen to be passionate enough about software
development that they volunteer their free time or are even paid to
contribute to open source. Even those who are not professional developers
have to prove their salt with quality patches before they can become core
contributors to a project. Furthermore, think about the contributions of
amateurs in other fields, such as Astronomy, that often provide key
insights and discoveries that otherwise might have gone unnoticed for many
years. Finally, don't underestimate the power of the open source
development model that helps to avoid many of the problems I listed above
with the hypothetical Apple SlimServer.
Now lest you think I paint too rosy a picture of open source, let me
clarify that I am not saying that all open source software is superior to
all commercial software. I do, however, believe that the most successful
open source software projects match or exceed the quality and utility of
their commercial competitors, and that meritocracy helps to ensure that
the best survive and evolve while the rest flounder and fade away.
--
Jason Voegele
"There is an essential core at the center of each man and woman that
remains unaltered no matter how life's externals may be transformed
or recombined. But it's smaller than we think."
-- Gene Wolfe, The Book of the Long Sun
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
