On 20/08/07, David Lyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Traditional open-source says, "we have a good idea, the product works
> well over there in (that) context. Over here it might not work so well
> unless we do some work on it to fix it. Would you like to pay me to work
> on it?"
I don't get this thinking! Why downplay open source software? Why
must it always be associated as inferior to commercial closed source
software. There is NO logical reason that open source software should
be of lower quality compared to commercial software. Just because a
commercial company might help, doesn't simply make the software
better!
Lets look at some examples:
- Microsoft Bob. The biggest load of crap ever and never worked.
- Microsoft Office. Total bloat ware and a hell of a memory hog.
- Microsoft Windows Vista. Why on earth does a OS required 1 Gig of
memory just to run your computer. Then you still want to run your own
software on top of that OS. It is simply sloppy programming and just
because memory prices are low, doesn't give developers the go-ahead to
not write efficient software.
- Microsoft Windows Vista Aero (3D) feature. It requires a 128Mb
video card, just to make a few windows transparent and place some
shadows under them. Why such a high spec video card?? It's not a 3D
game! Linux manages the same 3D effects plus more using only a 16Mb
video card! Optimized open source software compared to commercial
closed source software.
There, 4 quick examples from one of the biggest commercial software
companies that got it WRONG.
I downloaded a first person shooter game the other day. A DOOM style
game. It had a fully playable level with sound. And the size of the
single exe game was: 300k!! That's optimized coding!
Regards,
- Graeme -
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
