Edmund Cramp wrote:
> I think that I look at it differently - I expect bugs in any early
> version, close source or not. I probably tend to use the more mature
> Open Source apps (since I work mainly in a Windows environment) but
> I'm pretty intolerant of any program that I regard as unusable/unstable.
>
> I do think that there's a good argument that commercial applications
> should be held to a higher standard - if you're going to charge
> someone money for the software then it should work as advertised and
> bugs should be fixed quickly.
>
From a purely capitalistic viewpoint, I wish that commercial
applications would be held to a higher standard. But it simply isn't
true (ergo, I am agreeing with you).
But that's a huge benefit of open source - almost invariably the
developers of the application are in touch with the users of that
application, and gain immediate first-hand feedback. This is largely
because commercial software developers have to rely on paid
beta-testers. Even public beta testers cost developers money, as they
have to provide a broad number of resources to faciliate the feedback
process, and are even less tolerant of bugs than the general public will be.
Open source developers have plenty of free beta-testing, and have
the luxury of not having to be perfect from the start, and don't have to
worry quite as much about "intolerant" end users, such as yourself (only
echoing your words, not being derogatory on purpose). When your
purchase price is $0.00, then no matter how you cut it, a full refund
for a defective product is still $0.00.
David
