Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Joe Butler Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 04:52 pm "MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message news:ldadnd2QI_c3kqneRVn-uw@io.com... > In article <0001HW.BF59306F00511954F0407550@news.verizon.net>, > > Closed source makes it a lot more difficult to switch vendors, after > you've made your initial pick. Once the choice is made, you have to > rely on the initial vendor for support. If they don't live up to your > expectations... sorry, you lose. No, you loose if you were dumb enough to pick such a product when it didn't fulfill all of your needs from the outset - particularly if there were alternatives. This would be the case if you choose open source or closed source - remember that the vast majority of sotware users have no idea how to program (or even how to use a product to its full potential). > >What is funny > >to me is hearing people bitch about MS, after buying tons of > >product from them, knowing the entire time what their track > >record is. > > It's a lack of long-term thinking. Nobody got fired for buying > Microsoft, and the negative consequences of a choice to adopt > VB2 (for example) weren't felt until 10 years later. > So, what the hell were your reasons for choosing VB2 (for example) 10 years ago? What advantages did it give YOU all that time ago? I was using VC1.5 10 years ago (for real) - now I'm using VC6 - The fact that VC is closed source has had zero impact on me. I've also used compilers and development environments for a couple of embedded systems (both closed source and open source) - the fact that the source was open or closed has had zero impact on me. I have no desire go go hunting around the internals of the compiler or anything else to fix or otherwise. My job is to develop products - I don't have any reason to spend time sorting out issues on open source or closed source products (I just find a workaround for both types of product). .