I need a new Windows platform!!!!

Originally Posted by Yarin

I sure know I would be alot more likely to tell the Linux dev team about a security hole in the kernel that I found than telling Microsoft about a hole I found in their kernel.

And there's probably people who would do the exact opposite. So what?
If you have some personal grudge against MS, then of course you're not going to do something to help them.

As for this Open Source being better debate... It's nonsense. Sure, some open source projects might be better than their corresponding closed source projects, but that doesn't mean that ALL open source projects are better than their corresponding closed source projects. Plus, how do you define better? Certainly not in documentation! Almost all Open Source project documentation I've seen has been woefully incomplete and the spelling & grammar is usually an abomination!

Originally Posted by Yarin

In closed source the programmers are paid, so they're just there for the money. Which means rotten code and huge shortcuts if they can get away with it. In open source projects most of the people there want to program, which often (but not always, I know) means less sloppy code. And I bet you have a few 'senior programmers' who've retired from the professional field, and are taking their massive amounts of experience to the code of open source projects, at the very least just as a hobby.

I second Mario F.: it is naive to assume that just because you are paid for your work, you will do a bad job for it because you are there for the money. A person might be in a job just for the money, but that does not stop him/her from taking pride in his/her work. Then there are people who do what they do because they love it: they might even "work" for free, but being paid for it is a great bonus. Also, there are open source projects whose core developers are paid on a regular basis, e.g., due to permanent sponsorship from a company, or perhaps that company started the project.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Guys I can't help but feel that open source v. closed source is really off topic here. We all know that Elysia has a really big, throbbing hard on for Microsoft products so I don't know why everyone is winding up over one person's opinion. To me it's not at all surprising Elysia likes closed source environments.

Let me make this clear at least:
- I do NOT like Microsoft products, for two reasons:
-- They are buggy and often slow.
-- I do not like Microsoft one bit. They are an evil company that tries to dominate market and is on my Evil™ list. Please do NOT associate me with Microsoft.
- I am not pro closed source. I am neither pro closed nor open source. However, to me, it doesn't matter if it's open or closed source. I don't care for open source myself. I don't dislike it, and I don't hate it, but I see no advantages to myself. Certainly there are to others, so Open Source is not a bad thing. But it has advantages for me, so I don't care if software is open or closed source.

Now, as for the debate, I don't really care to go into detail anymore. My opinions have already been summed up. Closed Source is not Hell on Earth™, and Open Source is not Heaven on Earth™. They have ups and downs, advantages and disadvantages.

It's great that you want to give everything a chance, but man, is that ever a useless way to use your head. It is honestly not my fault or my problem that I "associate" you with something you don't like, when you project the wrong image entirely in public.

I see your point, Mario and laserlight. Mario, I don't think less of closed source coders, on the contrary, if you invest your time to become good at something, your going to want to make it worth your while. I just assume that they are more likely to get away with slapping something together than an open source contributer. But I guess it comes down to the quality control management in both models.

Documentation is something I didn't think about, I do agree that in general closed source has much better docs and open source. However, to be fair, in open source, you can review the inner workings of the project so that, in the end, you maybe even understand the provided API (or something else) better than a closed source documentation would have shown you. But I know, it takes time to do that.

Let me try to clarify my stance. Let's say you have XP (Experimental Project (no pun intendid )), if XP is closed source and has a 5 of 10 star rating. If it where to go open source, and it's quality control team where to remain of the same quality itself (among other areas of management), I do think it will automatically get better (but depending on the popularity and size of the project, can take a long time to do so). Remember, I'm not saying open PA is automatically better than closed PB, but that open PA is better than closed PA.

cpjust did bring up a good point - better in what way. When I say better I'm refering the the size and capability of the project. I honestly didn't even think about it's user-friendliness and documentation.

Elysia, you saying "I'm not pro MS" is actually surprising. People don't call you 'MSlysia' just because they want to label a random person the MS nut.

Originally Posted by Yarin

Elysia, you saying "I'm not pro MS" is actually surprising.

I've been working on her a lot lately

Originally Posted by Yarin

Remember, I'm not saying open PA is automatically better than closed PB, but that open PA is better than closed PA.

And that too I feel is debatable.

I find that certain type of projects aren't more doable under OS conditions. A democratic approach to software development is not always desirable because,

- the feudal approach is much more effective in attributing clear responsibilities and much quicker in reacting to failed expectations, tending to keep the project alive and well feed even in the presence of a small development team. It is also generally more capable in acquiring and distributing all types of resources (material and human)... assuming a commercial closed source venture, naturally.

- Whereas an OS project that is not sizable enough to rely purely on inertia, is more sensitive to any form of attrition and usually fails and is abandoned when problems start.

It's again important to remember that not all OS effort is related to success stories like Linux. I'd go as far as to say there probably have been more failures than successes in the history of OS. But the same can probably be said of closed source, which really brings us back again to the conclusion that this is not a determining factor.

And if there is still the temptation to correlate similar stories (say Linux and Windows), here's a thought:

Careful, when looking down at Windows as an example of how bad closed source can be. This is an operating system that powers the most computers on this planet and has made its company one of the wealthiest and most complex in the world. Similarly this operating system helped generate -- and this day almost single-handedly feed -- a huge software and entertainment industry responsible for a respectable percentage of World's GDP.

Saying Windows is an example of how bad closed source is, is denying the evidence that with all its flaws, Microsoft is one the biggest success stories in the history of business, and Microsoft Windows the reason.

I suggest looking elsewhere for good examples of bad closed source. The trouble is that suddenly you can think of a lot of open source projects that fit on that list... oops!

Originally Posted by Elysia

...

This strikes me as a "If I can't beat them, join them" deal. If you don't like MS software, I'd love to see how you'd evangelize VS if you did. Maybe some sort of song would be in order, here I'll help with a draft of a first verse:

Code:

Visual Studio, the suite not short of a chair
You're a tool collection designed to let me keep my hair
Compiler, IDE and so much more
Includes a WYSIWYG editor, that much is sure
CL, my friend, you're a gluttonous fool
You ingest my code, and leave an exe as a stool
A ravenous tool I feed with structs and classes
With a Gy switch to counter stack smashes
Buffer overflows for crashes I cannot blame
Because of the canary you put inside the stack frame
No matter my refrain, or what gas I expel
It'll always hang around to catch a code smell
I don't have to impel, you always have the best of intentions
But why did fopen need an underscore s extension?
The secure CRT convention, a great and laudable idea
Produces only slightly more instructions than a store of IKEA
Have no fear, the dll runtime is a pleasure to use
Just once I had to battle through the redist blues
Some manifest abuse, a policy, an app.config file
Only 1 did I need to make the Windows gods smile
Versatile optimization is as strong as an Ox
The intrinsic speed increase won't leave me in the blocks
Dr Phlox may have a cure, but I know I'm not sick
Even if it is undetermined if I'm a dude or a chick

I feel compelled to use some MS software simply because I don't know/can't find any better alternatives.
Besides, I'm entitled to a free copy of Visual Studio Professional due to my student identity.

Another good point that I overlooked, when dealing with a very small dev team, closed source is often the only way to go.

Dr Phlox may have a cure, but I know I'm not sick

Originally Posted by Elysia

I feel compelled to use some MS software simply because I don't know/can't find any better alternatives.
Besides, I'm entitled to a free copy of Visual Studio Professional due to my student identity.

I will admit, I do think VS is nice, I only have an express copy, and it has some nice features. (But the intellisence was taxing my system, forcing me to turn it off, which disabled a few of those nice features.)