Originally Posted by Elysia
Originally Posted by Elysia
We should open a new forum dedicated to semantic debates just for Elysia.
It depends on what you use the OS for. To me, Windows is a low-quality OS because I'm so limited in what I'm allowed to do with it - it's completely on the terms of a company I've already paid, but reserves the right to change it's mind about what I can do with it.Quote:
Open source isn't a factor of the quality of an OS.
Linux is an extremely high-quality OS, even in it's 'unpolished' parts to me, because I can go ahead and use parts of an already robust and fast kernel, and create new parts specifically for myself. I also never have to worry about corporate politics and pointless 'service packs' that actually inhibit the usefulness of my computer (regardless of my computer's screen size or mobility).
Granted, that's not everyone's definition of useful, but I would much rather develop for Android than for Windows CE for precisely that reason.
Merely being open source is a factor, or maybe a feature of the OS.
It doesn't matter one bit if an OS is open source or not to me, and Windows is high-quality if you ask me, which kinda says to me that Open Source is a factor of personal preference, not a quality factor.
Given a choice between two OSes, pretty much identical in everything, I'd stick to the one that uses C++ instead of C. So in my view (note personal opinion!), any OS that uses C (or Obj-C) for its API gets a negative impact on its score.
Once you get your syntax correct, you can think about semantics.
"A branch of linguistics studying the meaning of words; The study of the relationship between words and their meanings; The individual meanings of words, as opposed to the overall meaning of a passage..."
Semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If something is open source then it's automatically better. Period. I know it doesn't automatically make it better than a random closed source product, but it does make it better than if it were also closed source. After all, the reason Linux is so great in the first place is because it's open source (and I think the monolithic as apposed to the microlithic kernel may have something to do with it too).
I like and do appreciate semantics too. But such debates usually get no where fast. Which may be because you're arguing about something that (in a way) you're using to argue with in the first place.
I find it ironic. A comment suddenly deserves a flurry of posts on how semantically restrictive it was (no one actually made an effort to understand the intended meaning of the author. Or they did understand it, but decided it would be better to just flog it anyways). But then, when it's your balls on the line suddenly let's all get a little more semantically restrictive.
He already gave an example, and I think you're misunderstanding him. What he's saying is that an open-source product is automatically better than what the same product would be if it had been closed source. His example is Linux - it's popularity and advancement is primarily due to open-source. To refute that you need to cite an example of an open-source product that would be better off being closed source.Quote:
Proof of concept?
edit:Linus Torvalds himself said that if he could do it again, he would have chosen a micro-kernel design (although granted, in his debate with Andrew Tanenbaum, he cited several advantages to the monolthic kernels). They have their ups-and-downs, but the current kernel is really a hybrid, IMO, and much better than either paradigm alone. It's modular, but fast and cohesive.Quote:
(and I think the monolithic as apposed to the microlithic kernel may have something to do with it too)
Of course, then we just switched to another Linux vs. Windows thread. One among million of which the end result was always "You can't really say which is better... if you are an unbiased person".
So... come again? Open Source product is always better than a closed Source software? Are you sure?
Product X, first closed source. Score: 1.0.
Product X now goes open source. Score: 2.0.
No. That's now how it works. Open source does NOT make it automatically better.
I'm not saying open source can't MAKE a product better. Sure it can. But then again, perhaps it degrades its value. There's just no way it automatically becomes better with no work. No way.
Also, open source may mean development for it is more difficult due to all parts being able to modify the source. So they send in a patch which has to be reviewed, and then integrated into the current build.
This may also happen to closed source, especially with big projects and so, but this is just an argument that open source doesn't always make it better. May. Not does.
I do not think that that is Yarin's statement. Yarin's assertion is that open source <insert project name> is better than <insert same project name>, an example being that open source Linux is better than closed source Linux. Unfortunately, we have no way of comparing open source Linux to closed source Linux since the latter does not exist, thus we can only base a comparison on reasonable conjecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Also, when you are talking about fairly concrete and objective things, if you cannot "make your meaning clear", that could be laziness OR it could be the thinking behind it is sloppy (or has barely occurred). In other words, if you are lazy at expressing yourself, there might be a few more levels of laziness hidden in there as well.
What's really ironic are the CS students who come here and can barely even spell -- I honestly think they believe that getting their code correct is more important than being able to ask a straightforward question. Like, "it doesn't matter, somebody will be smart enough to get what I'm trying to get at I hope". Not that spelling is an indication of this one way or another -- if you get my point :p But in generally irony is opaque to semantic analysis, methinks.
No - I never said anything about a statement that one particular product was better than another particular project. All that was stated in what I quoted, is that ONE particular open source project is (almost) certainly better than THAT SAME project would have been had it been closed source.Quote:
What about him proving that Linux is better than Windows?
Linux, Firefox, OO.org, etc... are all more customizable, extensible and mature because their source code is open. Whether they are better than the MS counterparts is up for debate, but how can one argue that Firefox would have been better off closed source? It wouldn't be as secure, customizable, popular or advanced (and most likely not free).
Neither I nor anyone else made a statement regarding the ability to CHANGE the source code of the central product. Where did you get that idea, anyway? Open source software is practically never editable by "just anyone". There's always a central governing body that determines what is accepted in to the main branch. You can edit the code for yourself however you want, but that is no reflection on how mature the central project is.Quote:
it is more difficult due to all parts being able to modify the source
edit: I would further argue that anyone who is bad enough at project management to let an open-source project become disorganized, would have the same difficulty with paid employees and corporate security, and with no external criticism.
edit2: Yes they are. IMO what you're paying for is support in that case, as I'm yet to see a closed-source UNIX that does as well as Linux 2.6.* in benchmarks or popularity (and perhaps security, too - but I have no evidence, just a hunch).
Yes, but Linux is not Unix.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27