Re: Quality control and FOSS rant

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Roman Kennke wrote:
That whole discussion is probably interesting but mostly pointless. Both
approaches (closed and open) apparently tend to produce relatively high
quality code (or really crappy code, happens in both camps), where with
the closed approach the developers (or vendors) have to take over 100%
responsibility (because the end user has no way to interact with the
development),
That's an odd thing to say. I don't know why you might think that closed source developers have any less customer contact that open source developers. It's true that many closed source shops have some buffer(s) between the software developer and the end user, and in those cases
I guess the issue is whether that's a plus or a minus.
which usually makes things very formal and slow, where the
open approach relies very much on the end users reporting problems.
Again, I don't know why you'd think that closed source doesn't do the same.
In
most active projects these are fixed really quickly, giving both the
developers and the end users a warm fuzzy feeling ;-)
A quick fix (except for something completely trivial) always gives me a nervous feeling, not warm and fuzzy. Maybe I'm in the minority there, and it probably is related to working on projects where the customer
is not a forgiving software-developer-type.
Labelling FOSS as
playground for bored developers is, uhm, strange.
That was a response to the claim:

   Classpath bugs don't
   have such administration issues due to
   its longer history as a FOSS project and existing community-oriented fun
   development paradigm.

So I'm summarizing "fun development paradigm" as "developer playground".



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Cryptography]     [Fedora]     [Fedora Directory]     [Red Hat Development]

  Powered by Linux