----- Original Message ----- From: "Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [brluglist] windows sucks
> At 08:24 PM 4/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >The majority of open source software is written by people who expect to use > >the software. Therefore, you have more occurances of developers actually > >using their software, and performing their own bug testing. This, > >unfortunately, doesn't happen in many large software shops. For example, I > >doubt the developers of Microsoft Encarta end up using the software for > >their own use, and QA is done by other employees. The "release early, > >release often" methodology also contributes to a smaller number of bugs in a > >given release of software. Large software packages, as a marketing rule, > >bundle bug fixes together for the next major release, rather than releasing > >many point releases when bugs are found and fixed. In a lot of cases, you > >don't get fixes until enough "features" have been added to justify a version > >upgrade. > > Excellent points, and I tend to agree. > > >I think, for these reasons, as well as the "more eyeballs" reason, that open > >source software by nature is more error-proof. > > To open up another avenue of discussion.. But can it also be said that more > open source than commercial software is written by self-trained or > hobbyists programmers? Could this result in the average open source program > being written poorly, or at least not with the same rigor as commercial > programs? Based on the conversations I've had with [lots of] open source developers, I'd say that the majority of OSS developers are trained in universities. Compare that to a mix of university, and on-the-job learned-the-tool-on-the-fly training that many commercial developers receive. I think the "rigor" of commercial development is subjective, as motives for releases of the software can vary. The point has been made in the past about, especially, but not limited to, certain unnameable companies, about certain features of applications being deliberately ommitted or disabled in order to upsell another product. Anyway, there's nothing about being Open Source that disqualifies commercial levels of code-review. The best open source companies apply a mixture of open source and commercial programming practices and still release under free software licenses. -Tim ================================================ BRLUG - The Baton Rouge Linux User Group Visit http://www.brlug.net for more information. Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to change your subscription information. ================================================
