05-23-2017, 08:14 PM
(05-23-2017, 07:48 AM)MarkHaysHarris777 Wrote:(05-23-2017, 05:50 AM)dvescovi Wrote: While I am the original poster and I am totally for open source
I disagree with most of your conclusions. open source software is no better or worse than closed software.
... you cannot be 'totally for open source' and at the same time not agree with my conclusions. (mutually exclusive)
Not so fast there Macus! There is no single *right* or *wrong*... but all shades of grey. Closed source has its place, as does open source. And open source can be run well, or run badly. Badly run open source can be worse than not doing it at all. Good closed source can be as good as open source, or better. It really depends on the team and the vision of the management. And whilst you gleefully trot out Microsoft as an example of why closed source doesn't work... you neglect to mention how the number of hardware and software combinations they need to support. Now I know there are all sort of arguments about NDIs and protectionist practises... and that can't be disputed... they are just facts. As is another like that all the closed source stuff like DRM and binary blobs are handicapping the open source movement. But you can understand that companies that have made all their money from these binary blobs aren't going to want to hand over the keys without fully understanding the ramifications... and they may decide the risk is NOT worth the claimed reward. But that is a whole quagmire of an discussion that is OT to this thread.
(05-23-2017, 10:30 AM)dvescovi Wrote: So you have to be in one camp or another?
Nope... to do so would be like flogging a dead horse. This argument has been going on for years, and the answer any sane person will finally arrive at is that each has their place. Just look at nature... evolution hasn't put all it's eggs in one basket for a reason
