T H R E E!!!
Well Virginia, I personally think we have a Number three for the Flame War
FAQ list. Open Source. From now on when the topic turns to Open Source,
every one just hold up the number three.
T H R E E!!!
–
Gary G. Little
Seagate Technologies, LLC
“Nick Ryan” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> I can name ten software products I’d love to go and fix bugs in. Any
> Open Source project worth its salt is run by a leader who is regular
> about accepting bug fix patches from developers. This is an argument in
> favor of Open Source, in my opinion.
>
> Rob Green wrote:
>
> > Ok, so now I enter… 
> >
> > The company you bought the software from has a vested interest in
> > solving whatever problem you may have. The whatever you downloaded
> > the code from does’t. You may be able to get support via other
> > mechanisms, but they usually say “if you don’t know how to make it work
> > you don’t belong here” and then ban you from the channel, newsgroup or
> > website.
> >
> > Now depending on various reasons, the problem may not get solved by the
> > company or solved inadequately (to your expectations). This really cant
> > be helped without cloning 50 copies of the main engineer. There is just
> > not enough time in the day for him/her to fix all the issues. Also, its
> > not (usually) that the company doesn’t want to fix the bug, they just
> > have 30(0) other bugs that are at a higher priority (such as a security
> > hole, or a bsod that happens when you install xyz) than your bug
> > (whether you think so or not). What bugs get fixed is decided (usually)
> > by a committee (and some bugs are fixed (introduced) by the developers
> > on their own), thus it is not in the companies best interest to screw
> > “Joe User”. The committee usually involves someone in management,
> > engineering, QA and sometimes marketing.
> >
> > The company has a vested interest in the amount of time and money
> > invested in the project. No company creates a product, releases it, and
> > then decides it is not going to support it on purpose. They want to
> > continue to make money (I know I do), and the best way to do that is to
> > sell more copies. You do not sell more copies if no one uses your
> > product!
> >
> > Maintaining an engineering team, marketing, sales, QA, etc… requires
> > money. Money you pay for software goes to the SUPPORT of the product,
> > as the company has already invested in the (initial) development of the
> > product.
> >
> > Companies for one reason or another just can not stand refunds! If 10%
> > of all calls (which by the way requires money to be able to man the
> > calls) is the result of a bug, you can bet that bug will be fixed (its
> > then cheaper to fix the bug than to keep having the calls).
> >
> > With open source there is noone to go to get the bug fixed. Do you go
> > to the owner? No usually he says you are using the product wrong and
> > you should die (in not so nice language!). How about a company that
> > sells “support”? That doesn’t work either (skipping over details on
> > purpose). So YOU end up fixing the bug, and are the only one who
> > benefits from it. This of course is assuming you can spend say 20 man
> > hours to find the bug. I think this is optimistic as you must know
> > where to look, find the source, be able to compile the source (NOT
> > EASY), and then figure out how the source works. This is a lot of time
> > and energy that I do not have, nor am willing to give away for free.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-ntdev-
> >>xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of George Blat
> >>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:22 PM
> >>To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
> >>Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
> >>“how to execute a process…”)
> >>
> >>I have an analogy about allowing source code to be seen or keeping it
> >>secret. Suppose
> >>a small part breaks in your car transmission . Because of the
> >
> > considerable
> >
> >>intellectual property
> >>involved, the manufacturer seals the transmission so it cannot be
> >
> > opened
> >
> >>without destroying it.
> >>That helps them avoid helping copycats. But now you have to buy a
> >
> > brand
> >
> >>new
> >>transmission
> >>because they did not allow you to change a small metal screen filter
> >
> > worth
> >
> >>20 cents. Good for the
> >>manufacturer, but you are screwed. Open source is like the current
> >
> > state.
> >
> >>You take the transmission,
> >>see how it works and change just what needs to be changed. Maybe you
> >
> > don’t
> >
> >>work on transmissions,
> >>but the shop that does it for you will be affected, and they will pass
> >>their costs to you. You are always
> >>screwed with close source.
> >>
> >>George
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>—
> >>Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> >>http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >>
> >>You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@cdp.com
> >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> –
> Nick Ryan (MVP for DDK)
>
>
>