> I have no problems with someone pointing out flaws in XYZ product
> when compared to ABC product, provided:
> a) they're an independent, uninvolved 3rd party
> and
> b) the two products are identical in feature, function, and purpose.
Speaking personally, I'd say
or
c) The comparison is hones
A couple key phrases come to mind when reading this:
1) conflict of interest (he's selling "a solution")
2) inappropriate comparison (embedded OS vs. general OS)
I have no problems with someone pointing out flaws in XYZ product when compared to ABC
product, provided:
a) they're an independent,
Hi all,
I just saw a Slashdot story
(http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/30/1421223&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=156&tid=185)
announcing an MIT study on software development processes used around the
world. The report itself can be found at
http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers
At 7:31 PM -0500 4/29/04, Tad Anhalt wrote:
> How did they bootstrap their system? In other words, how did they
>ensure that they could trust their entire tool chain in the first place?
> They hint that the whole system was written by a few trusted persons.
Begging the question "trusted by wh
Jeremy Epstein wrote:
I agree with much of what he says about the potential for infiltration of
bad stuff into Linux, but he's comparing apples and oranges. He's comparing
a large, complex open source product to a small, simple closed source
product. I claim that if you ignore the open/closed par
Jeremy Epstein wrote:
> I agree with much of what he says about the potential for
> infiltration of bad stuff into Linux, but he's comparing apples and
> oranges. He's comparing a large, complex open source product to a
> small, simple closed source product. I claim that if you ignore the
>
