On 02/14/2011 12:24 PM, Stephen Russell wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Leland Jackson<[email protected]> > wrote: >> I agree. Open source has its advantages over Microsoft's OS and >> Microsoft's application stacks. For one thing, I can get into the >> source code to see what's going on. If something is going wrong, I can >> attempt to debug the problem, or I can charge billable hours extending, >> customizing, and creating open source applications. I can even fork an >> existing application bending it to do exactly what I want. > --------------------- > > You can only debug because you have source code? > > The rest of your reply reads like all of our Mission Statements. We > will fix your problem. > >> With Microsoft's OS and applications, everything is a big mystery >> including the Registry. If something goes wrong, there is no way to get >> at the problem directly. Everything must be done by Microsoft's people. > ----------------------- > > Big mystery? They wrote a few hundred books to sweep away the > curtains a long time ago I thought? > > <http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/exam.aspx> > > So the no way to get at a problem directly is because you don't know > how. So, tell me how to debug a Microsoft complied application or OS, when it starts going wierd or throwing C5s. Perhaps you have some kind of sixth sense allowing you to mystically see into the binary ones and zeros, turning them into human readable source code. Most of Microsoft code, including its OS code and Application code, is binary, copyrighted, and and held in strickest secrecy.a network admin or a programmer? Over the past 10 years both sides of > I know that I don't know it all in today's environment. Are you > a network admin or a programmer?
I'm both a network admin and programmer among many other things that it takes to run a small business. > Over the past 10 years both sides of > the equation have gotten larger and teh ability in cross over becomes > harder. > > Talking to our java lead programmer about builds and management of > code leads me to believe that we need to hire someone with experience > in this so she can learn from them. Could be contractor to start or a > FTE because there is going to be so much new work in this area. > > Back to your main point. I think that the value of tweaking existing > code in a product is overrated compared to someone who uses that > product for their daily tasks. I'll say that tweaking the codebase > for VFP is not what a VFP developer should be doing. So tossing > around that is a benefit to have it is not worth a lot. ############## Excerpt: Posted on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 by Erlik When people think about adopting an Open Source solution, the first factor that comes to mind is the price: it is usually cheaper than proprietary alternatives. What a lot of people fail to consider is that there are a lot of other advantages to Open Source that can be much more important than the price factor. Let's have a look at a few of them: No forced end of life One of the most overlooked advantage of Open Source is that there is no real end of life for any project. If a driver is released as Open Source and part of the Linux kernel your hardware will probably work out of the box for as long as you care to use that piece of equipment. In the proprietary world it is common for hardware manufacturers not to release a decent driver to run older hardware on newer operating systems to drive sales of newer models. When Windows Vista was released Creative Labs released a Vista driver that did not support all the features present in the XP driver for its older hardware, thus consumer were forced to buy the newer models just to have on Vista the same features as their old hardware on XP. This could not have happened if the drivers were Open Source, as any developer would have been able to port the XP driver to Vista or to modify the Vista driver to support all of the old hardware features. The same is true for software: even if the company that built your software does not support it anymore as long as a developer is willing to maintain it you are good, and if you really need that software nothing prevents you to hire that developer. True competition rather than lock in One of the easiest way for any software company to make long term money is software 'lock in'. The idea is to sell you a piece of software without telling you its inner workings or how to convert the files it produces to other formats. This means that the original vendor is the only one that can sell you upgrades or maintenance on that piece of software since he is the only one that know how it was built. That exclusivity often comes at a premium price since the software vendor has virtually no competition for your custom. In the case of Open Source the inner working of your software and the files it produces are known, meaning that several companies can offer support and maintenance for it, as well as develop and sell compatible alternatives. This creates real competition, encourages innovation and brings prices down for the consumer. Security transparency Do you know if Windows is secure? Do you know if it has any back-doors? No you don't, only Microsoft knows that. With closed source software you have no way to know if the software was properly tested for security holes or if unwanted code has been added to the software. With Open Source everything is transparent: you know exactly what you are running and anybody can easily look for security vulnerabilities. The right to fork What do you have to say about the direction that Windows has taken in the recent years? Not , much! If you do not like what Microsoft did with Vista and Windows 7 too bad, it's that or nothing. With Open Source software you can Fork. This means that if you do not like the direction that a piece of software is taking you can always create your own version and push it in the direction you like. Of course this comes with some problems: it causes fragmentation and reduces the resources that can be invested in each fork, but often forking is actually not necessary. When the developers or maintainers of an Open Source software project realize that a significant part of their users are unhappy with what they are doing and are ready to fork they sometimes change their plans to make everyone happy. Sometimes forks also merge after some time, or sometimes the less popular fork dies. This means that users actually have much more control on the direction in which the Open Source software they use evolves than with closed source software. These are only some of the advantages of Open Source. This is why I would always prefer to purchase hardware for which there is an Open Source driver, or application that are Open Source. It is not only a question of price! http://www.tech-no-media.com/2009/08/open-source-many-advantages-beyond.html #--------------------------------- > I work with vendor products that are very expensive to get into. As > we work with them we find the walls that stop us from getting what we > WANT because it is their secrets in th industry and they think they > are worth keeping. I work with this way too much this year > <http://www.cardiff.com/products/liquidoffice/> > > We connect to this for a great deal of the content. > <http://www.hyland.com/onbase-and-ecm.aspx> > > Neither product gives us source, and heck we are barely sub customers > where we can only purchase licenses and ask questions of a reseller. > I don't make the rules I just have to live by them. :( If you keep evanglisling Microsoft like this, we will have to make you a Microsoft MVP next year. LMAO Regards, LelandJ > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
