|
Post by yertul on Oct 6, 2009 11:49:11 GMT -5
What do you guys think about its aims and goals? Do you think it has a future? Do you use any open soruce soft ware?
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Oct 6, 2009 12:11:42 GMT -5
I do. I have Linux working on some older machines of mine and so a lot of the programs are developed and tested by their users.
I see a definite future as long as software companies keep charging prices that border on extortion for buggy software. Open source stuff may also be buggy, but at least you aren't being charged for it.
|
|
|
Post by yertul on Oct 6, 2009 12:23:53 GMT -5
I totally agree with you rime. I think its a shame the the US government isn't promoting open source. The world would be a much better place without closed software.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 6, 2009 14:00:42 GMT -5
Whilst I think closed software has a place, I don't like the fact I have to pay through the nose for it. Yeah, sure, all the latest features and what not for Software X, but when you have an open source alternative that can do the same for free, then why bother?
The only issue I see is really support, at least OS-wise, because whilst I'm tied to Windows (as I do a lot of gaming), I do use a lot of open-source software whenever I can. Though, the issue for me now is re-learning to use a different software package, as though I've learnt how to use 3DS Max (courtesy to my university course), I can't afford a legit copy so now I have to learn how to use Blender instead, which means a fair few hours of just tweaking and reading tutorials all over again. But experience in Blender is not always useful, for Maya is used more often, and again, that's really pricey.
I did manage to get a full version of Terragen 2 for a discounted price, so it isn't so bad, but again, it wasn't cheap.
So for open-source, I'm all for it, just issues of support that get to me.
|
|
|
Post by yertul on Oct 6, 2009 14:52:13 GMT -5
Bluefinger, have you ever tried wine? In any case as for software, a lot of times i find the open source alternatives to usually be better and less buggy. I switched to Linux partailly becuase, I didn't want to upgrade to VIsta and found that it was more stable. Before that, I used Open source applications such as Firefox and open office. I guess to make the switch you should try to start using Open source alternatives and getting used to them
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 6, 2009 15:11:17 GMT -5
Bluefinger, have you ever tried wine? In any case as for software, a lot of times i find the open source alternatives to usually be better and less buggy. I switched to Linux partailly becuase, I didn't want to upgrade to VIsta and found that it was more stable. Before that, I used Open source applications such as Firefox and open office. I guess to make the switch you should try to start using Open source alternatives and getting used to them No, I haven't, and I still hear that it has issues with some games, plus to be honest, my Vista x64 system works just fine. Yeah, I use OpenOffice and Firefox (used Opera for a while, but ended up back on Firefox), but now that I have a legit, full and free copy of Windows 7 (thanks to my university), I have little incentive to use another OS. Plus, as long as I can find open-source software that runs on Windows (GIMP, Blender, OpenOffice), the incentive to switch is tiny.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Oct 7, 2009 7:37:31 GMT -5
WINE may be far above something developed by Microsoft and free at that, but there is that issue of DirectX not working properly in most of the newer software I've tried out. My 2.2 GHz P4 Dell runs XP, and the license is good, so I'm in the same boat with Bluefinger. However, I've got 2 866MHz Pentuim 3s that I'm running Vector and Ubuntu on, and I'm going to have to say that a number of apps I've tried from the repo, particularly games, don't run properly. Freedroid, 8kingdoms and 20,000 light years in space are just 3 I can mention.
On the other hand, I also have GIMP, OpenOffice, Firefox and I prefer to run the pre-2.9 version of WINAMP.
And there is the matter of developers making beta software that seemed like a great idea, but never getting around to actually killing all the bugs. I know a few distros that seemed to be quite promising, but the notion of having to tinker, often for days, with a new distro is frustrating, especially since many of those distros don't seem to integrate newer versions of the apps in their repo.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Oct 7, 2009 11:20:09 GMT -5
As a professional programmer I do see some uses, but some it's supporters need to be shot.
Now, I'm not going to say everything being free is bad, but I will say that if I don't make a living, I'm not coding. Some of these twats are railing on any software that is charged for, no matter how much better it is than the free stuff out there.
It's a pain, but generally paying through the nose will get you something considerably better in the long run. If there are any other programmers in the audience, let's take a look at Mono, it's an open source version of the microsoft languages I program in. Now, why don't I use it? Well, the idiots behind it ignored a number of features I make use of regularly because they didn't find them interesting. Pretty much any open source software will have similar issues compared to a commercial product.
Simply put, good programmers are lazy programmers, lazy programmers don't do shit without motivation, and without monetary gain or a personal stake in something most are going to wander off eventually, causing even more issues for anyone else who has to look at the code.
Remember something, firefox is the jewel of open source, that is more or less the best general interest program available. That's it.
Now, outside mainstream applications, particularly nitch interest areas you can find a lot of awe inspiring open source, but odds are if you want to link any of these programs together you're going to have to get you keyboard dirty and break out some caffiene. But the odds of them still being supported? Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by yertul on Oct 7, 2009 17:18:18 GMT -5
Distind, free software doesn't mean free as as inb eer but freedom:) Stillman's phrase. You can still charge money for it. That's why it is possible that open source corporations exist such as Red Hat. I like LInux better because, its not controlled by one entity, so it can't force me to upgrade if I don't want to, Vista comes to mind. Ever heard of LInus's law?
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Oct 7, 2009 20:21:24 GMT -5
Ok, that actually brings up another one of my problems with open source.
Charging for it?
Really? Last I checked if someone charged for code they wrote, they got paid for it. And I'm not going to pretend a number of companies don't subsist simply off sending out experts and consultants on a particular piece of 'free' software, it's a scam in my book.
I understand it lets them polish it a bit more, but what kind of doormat is writing some of this code? I know we programmers are used to being walked on but that's somewhat ridiculous.
That said, I'm not entirely opposed to open source, but when it comes to commercial viability something you've written yourself specific to your target, or something someone else wrote to actually handle heavy work loads is going to hold up better than the patchwork most open source consists of.
Not even that they do a bad job of handling it, but when you get a number of relatively unorganized coders together, you're never going to have a real system so much as a pile of hacks that does what you need it to right now.
|
|
|
Post by lumberjackninja on Oct 8, 2009 9:04:48 GMT -5
I don't think you can blame the shortcomings of Mono entirely on the douchiness of certain developers; do you really think that Microsoft would cooperate with an effort to essentially destroy their niche by allowing programs written in .NET to run on Mono (and, specifically, Linux) just as well as on Windows, for free? Microsoft has a well-documented history of practicing the embrace-extend-extinguish combat strategy. I hate to be cynical, but Mono is probably an reversed version of that philosophy: get everybody else to embrace the technology (C#/.NET), add to the feature set faster than Mono can keep up, and finally they'll just stick with Microsoft for developing their solutions. Ok, that actually brings up another one of my problems with open source. Charging for it? Really? Last I checked if someone charged for code they wrote, they got paid for it. And I'm not going to pretend a number of companies don't subsist simply off sending out experts and consultants on a particular piece of 'free' software, it's a scam in my book. That's how Redhat made their money early on, and still do today; you can get their operating system for free, but if you want help maintaining it or guarantees on uptime, you pay for it, because those are things that require human beings, and humans aren't nearly as easy to copy as a piece of software (some would say that this adds to their charm). The developers that contribute to a project for which they don't get payed, but which is open-source, benefit in the fact that they now have a fully functional system, which they understand, and of which they can make unlimited deployments, for free. They "payed" for it by contributing (even though they didn't have to), and this puts them in a better position than mere users of a project- they know it inside and out, and can offer service/support for that product. To use the Redhat example cited above, do you think that Redhat is the only group that supports Redhat operating systems? No. Application vendors, like Oracle, hire people who know Redhat, so that when they deploy an instance of the database, they don't have to worry about the operating system playing nice with their software. I can name, off the top of my head, Apache and the operating system kernels (Linux and *BSD) as three counter-examples of what I think you're saying; they're open-source, and they're pretty much the foundation that the internet was built on (especially Apache+BSD). Having worked extensively with Apache+Linux, I can say their stability significantly outweighs that of, say, one of the Windows server architectures- especially for the cost. GNU stuff tends to be "bloated" (it's funny applying that term to software for which an entire install takes up less space than a full-featured non-free OS, and runs more efficiently), but in my experience the core GNU tools are very stable- certainly stable enough to run a large software company with. The BSD coreutils are incredibly stable, and benefit from the cohesiveness of the BSD development team. Again, I disagree. Successful open-source projects have shown that it is possible to organize a large number of disconnected programmers in such a way as to coordinate the building of a sophisticated piece of software. There are many ways to go about this- either limit the number of people who develop on the system (ala BSD) or allow patches from anybody, but set up a "gatekeeper" system so that only patches that meet minimum criteria are accepted into a release branch (like how Linux is run). I think that there are niches for both. The model I have seen emerging lately is that the core components- the foundation, if you will- of a system are often open-source (think perl/python/PHP, Java, Apache/Tomcat, the operating system itself, core libraries). On top of this free layer, which is probably the most difficult to develop in a timely manner and thus demands the attention of thousands of volunteers, sits proprietary applications- purpose-built, well supported pieces of software that do one job and, ostensibly, do it well; when shit hits the fan, you get support because that's what you pay for.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Oct 8, 2009 10:57:24 GMT -5
I've had this argument before, a lot of times, I've also been told Linux is stable, apache actually works, Firefox rocks.
Then whoever says it tries to set up any of the above on any machine I own.
My feelings about open source appear to be mutual, and I've yet to have someone figure out how I can crash Linux with my presence, or why I can get Firefox to lock up when I have no issues with IE.
But I'm going by my experience, which focuses on either customer deliverable software, or websites. When it comes to what I've done, what I need to do, open source has been nothing but a time sink with a few rare exceptions. I've found most supporters love to concentrate on those exceptions and ignore the steaming pile that constitutes most of it.
I do use a small amount of it, using SVN at the moment. Aside from the occasional horrific crash due to it's shell extensions, it's been quite useful, but it's also getting to be very quickly annoying with the 'oh hey, turns out we've got another update' warnings.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 10, 2009 17:22:41 GMT -5
Personally, open-source has its place. So does commercial software. I, for one, will never touch a Mac or Linux machine. Windows XP has worked fine, and its predecessors (never used ME...for a damn good reason) have worked well for me since Windows 3.1. Before then? I used DOS and had a Commodore 64 before that. However, I do use some open-source software, mostly because they're either the only thing available, or they're at least comparable to their commercial counterparts. Just a list of open-source stuff I use: - Firefox
- PCSX2 (PS2 emulator)
- FCEUX (NES emulator)
- Fusion (Sega emulator)
- wxDev-C++
- RunUO (Ultima Online server emulator)
- Razor (UO tool)
- Exult (Ultima 7 (1+2) engine under SDL)
- DVDFlick (for making ... well ... video DVDs)
Yeah, most of these are for gaming... Of course, I use plenty of commercial or closed-source software, as well. Of course, a great deal of my closed-source software is freeware and most of that which is not? Its pirated. Why? No money to pay for it. For those who just have to know, a list of my closed-source software: - Windows XP (commercial, pirated)
- Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 Express (freeware)
- Visual C++ 6.0 (commercial, pirated)
- BYOND (freeware, for small, online games)
- Qt Creator (freeware)
- TSearch (freeware, for memory hacking)
- WinRAR (might as well be freeware)
- TeamSpeak (freeware; for VoIP)
|
|
Mordeak
Junior Member
Official Filthiest Frood of FSTDT (and he forgot his towel!)
Narf
Posts: 87
|
Post by Mordeak on Oct 13, 2009 5:25:15 GMT -5
I've had this argument before, a lot of times, I've also been told Linux is stable, apache actually works, Firefox rocks. Then whoever says it tries to set up any of the above on any machine I own. My feelings about open source appear to be mutual, and I've yet to have someone figure out how I can crash Linux with my presence, or why I can get Firefox to lock up when I have no issues with IE. I'm running Linux on 4 machines. 2 PC's at work (including my workstation), 1 PC at home and on my laptop. Both my workstation and my laptop are running apache 2.2 with PHP and a mysql server. My workstation has a SMTP server running for testing mail scripts. I tried this on windows ... never again. We must be opposites because everything I try on windows crashes. To me windows is nothing more then a little xbox version on my laptop. It's there to amuse me, not to work with. And IE is the little retarted nephew of the browser family. It just doesn't seem to be able to catch up with the rest. But I'm going by my experience, which focuses on either customer deliverable software, or websites. When it comes to what I've done, what I need to do, open source has been nothing but a time sink with a few rare exceptions. I've found most supporters love to concentrate on those exceptions and ignore the steaming pile that constitutes most of it. I make websites and "browser apps" like we call them for a living. What does proprietary software have to offer me that opensource hasn't? And this is a serious question. I'm curious. I agree that proprietary software has it merits. We use Photoshop because Gimp doesn't have the functionality yet that Photoshop has to offer. We also use Indesign and Flash but that's about it. I have to admit that there is a lot of open source software that sucks, but those exceptions that you are talking about are most likely able to replace a lot of proprietary software that most people are using now.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 13, 2009 22:53:37 GMT -5
I've got a few reasons to advocate the use of commercial software: (Note that there are, as always, exceptions) - Better documentation.
- More readily-available resources.
- More likely to have better quality updates, albeit somewhat less frequent than open-source or freeware programs.
- As the programs are built to sell, they're more likely to be more user-friendly.
As I said before, there are exceptions and they're more generalities than anything. (Also, I'm adding a certain three-letter word beginning with "a" to the list of things that annoy me.)
|
|