Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 17, 2003 12:06 AM
> Open Source software has to mature like any other software package.
Exactly, and that was one of my points. There is a double standard in the media, and even amongst some Open Source advocates, whereby commercial software is given a chance to grow, while Open Source software is immediately judged on a scale of perfection.
Of course we also know that some of the supposed negative reactions are actually propaganda spread by Microsoft.
But the other point was that it is ludicrous for the original poster to claim that Open Source developers are disrespectful, when the poster boy for closed source development is Microsoft.
It's true that some OSS developers can be rude, and blind to any gols but their own. It's fine if you want to complain about those developers.
But for the original poster to claim that this is a general indictment against Open Source, well, that's ridiculous!
And it is especially ridiculous to level such accusations against Open Source, when the main alternative from the closed source world is Microsoft:
- Microsoft is arrogant in the extreme.
- Microsoft not only puts their own goals ahead of the interests of their customers, but also ahead of the law, or any consideration of morality.
- Microsoft uses extortion against its own customers.
Microsoft leaves its customers open to loss of data, and loss of privacy.
- Microsoft has been caught lying to its customers.
- Microsoft has been caught sabotaging its customers' non-MS applications.
- And so on.
So, I agree with your point that a double standard is being used when judging the maturity of newly-released Open Source software.
And I am adding that a double standard is also being used to judge the attitude of Open Source developers.
And I am saying that the second point is even more unfair than the first, because, on average, the morality and manners of OSS developers are so far above those of a certain closed source competitor, that it's ridiculous to even compare the two.
And I am questioning the motives of the original poster. What does is mean when that poster would reject all of Open Source because of isolated incidents of rudeness, when the main alternative makes him a victim of fraud, extortion, and so on? I know what I think it means.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Nonsense -- OSS attitude beats the alternative
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 17, 2003 12:06 AMExactly, and that was one of my points. There is a double standard in the media, and even amongst some Open Source advocates, whereby commercial software is given a chance to grow, while Open Source software is immediately judged on a scale of perfection.
Of course we also know that some of the supposed negative reactions are actually propaganda spread by Microsoft.
But the other point was that it is ludicrous for the original poster to claim that Open Source developers are disrespectful, when the poster boy for closed source development is Microsoft.
It's true that some OSS developers can be rude, and blind to any gols but their own. It's fine if you want to complain about those developers.
But for the original poster to claim that this is a general indictment against Open Source, well, that's ridiculous!
And it is especially ridiculous to level such accusations against Open Source, when the main alternative from the closed source world is Microsoft:
- Microsoft is arrogant in the extreme.
- Microsoft not only puts their own goals ahead of the interests of their customers, but also ahead of the law, or any consideration of morality.
- Microsoft uses extortion against its own customers.
Microsoft leaves its customers open to loss of data, and loss of privacy.
- Microsoft has been caught lying to its customers.
- Microsoft has been caught sabotaging its customers' non-MS applications.
- And so on.
So, I agree with your point that a double standard is being used when judging the maturity of newly-released Open Source software.
And I am adding that a double standard is also being used to judge the attitude of Open Source developers.
And I am saying that the second point is even more unfair than the first, because, on average, the morality and manners of OSS developers are so far above those of a certain closed source competitor, that it's ridiculous to even compare the two.
And I am questioning the motives of the original poster. What does is mean when that poster would reject all of Open Source because of isolated incidents of rudeness, when the main alternative makes him a victim of fraud, extortion, and so on? I know what I think it means.
#