On 14/02/2011 06:04 p.m., Stephen Russell wrote: > > Agree to the primary reason to use Open Source is cost. Little > thought went into the what if ... happens or What do we do when that > happens.
Easy, you call MicroShit support lines where someone with an Indian accent will first suggest it's your code that's wrong and failing that will tell you he'll report the issue. Then you sit and wait, and wait, and wait, and ...... till M$ after a couple of versions addresses the subject and discontinues the product. Whereas in Open Source is a bit more complicated. You subscribe to the mail list of the product and tell about your problem, a couple of blokes will tell you to specify your problem and eventually send some code that reproduces the issue, and eventually some of the developers will chime in and ask you to run some test code in your system. Finally if there is a straightaway patch they'll include it in the latest svn and you'll have to download and test if your issue is gone, or if it is a more involved bug they'll include it in their tracking system where you can regularly check if it is handled and by whom, or if it really itches you, you may volunteer and submit a patch yourself. As you see a real pain. It's much easier to make a phone call and sit on your ass. > > I give up at who you are upset with here? Vista or Creative Labs? I > read more pointers to M$ OS versions but it is the Creative Labs > driver the forked up correct? > Why? Is it only the M$ product that you'll defend? Didn't Creative Labs come up with a good offer? > I can read what your presenting but I find FEW companies that can > follow in that. So you mean to tell us that because you are not able to come up with a way of making money out of open source projects then open source is no good? Should we all pay for your lack of inventive and competitiveness? > that is compared to ALL the other companies who feel > that they have invested a lot of talent and capital and have a > wonderful product on their hands complete with a sales and maybe a > marketing staff. We are talking open source here, not "free" (as in beer) software. > On a rating of 1-10 least to most where to consider Oracle in respect > to "Open Source", please rate their evilness for me. Good news is, we don't need to care. Whatever Oracle does, the open source projects may always be forked if enough people don't like where they are going. Just check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_office ==> "The fork was created over fears that Oracle Corporation, after buying out the project's former sponsor Sun Microsystems, would discontinue OpenOffice.org as it had done with OpenSolaris." > Are they more evil because they buy up potential completion that is > open source today? If they actually had that intention then their understanding of open source is as shallow as yours. The projects will simply be forked and that's it. > Wasn't that the Edison model? Do you become more > upset that people sell out when offered a ton of money and the new > owner can change things as they feel? Isn't it their "stuff" and were > sharing it with you from the beginning because they thought it was > best for the product in the early days? We should get into politics to talk about this. Copyright is not a "natural" right, it's just a law some societies pass so as to protect and encourage research. So as soon as copyright does not encourage research but is used to get in the way of research, said societies have the right and the obligation to cease or modify those copyright laws. Said societies will evaluate and decide for what period of time will the copyright law protect the inventor, and this will be done in order to maximize the encouragement for research and development of knowledge. So you see, it's just a convenience law, not an "inalienable" right as you seem to think about it. > There are always going to be holes found as more diabolical people > start trying to find them. Humans built this stuff and nothing is > perfect. Sorry but everything is vulnerable unless you are off the > internet and your network allows no outside devices. Hard to maintain > isn't it? Really? And what do you think about intentional back doors put there by the software author? Do you remember the NSA key stuff in Wds? Do you really want some govt agency snooping inside your systems with the aid of M$? I don't. Not to say my stuff if govt proof, but at least I won't have people I pay to working against me. > > I am saying that sticking with Open Source because you can fix is a > myth for the typical user or small business operator. you have sold > them a ball of turds hook line and sinker and they are forever tied to > you because you can work with what they have. Not true, if you abuse your position they can bite the bullet and hire somebody else and pay for the time he will need to get acquainted with the system. So I agree with you partially in that it's not cost free. But it is possible to change developers if you have the source code, and many people seem to like to have that possibility at hand. > Instead if you were a > customer of Oracle you could find someone all over the world to help > you if and when you needed one. So long as the issue is with the application product and not the tool. So long as you are willing to pay the "modest" costs Oracle people are certain to charge you with (this is like car repair, the same thing will have a different price if your car is a Lamborghini than if your car is a Ford). So long as you are willing to pay Oracle db prices. I know PostgreSQL is not as good as Oracle db but it's so close that I'm not willing to pay $300,000 for the difference. And not willing to encourage my customers to do so. As for MS-SQL, it's not even in the same category as those other two. _______________________________________________ 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.
