Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : gswork
Date : Wed Sep 28 2005 02:14 am


Willem wrote:
> )> What does Close-Source Software have that Open-Source Software does not ?
> )>
> )> You can bash the benefits of OSS-over-CSS all you want, but that
> )> doesn't change the fact that you have yet to mention a single benefit
> )> of CSS-over-OSS.  And without that, you simply have no case.
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> So to boil that down to one sentence: you're saying that in
> your experience, open source software is of less quality
> than closed source software.
>
> Firstly, I have seen enough OSS that was of better quality
> than the equivalent CSS.
>
> Secondly, the actual difference probably comes from the majority of CSS
> being written by large companies, and the majority of OSS being written
> by amateurs and hobbyists.  So, the difference does not comes from the
> source being open or closed, it comes from something completely different.

this is a good point.    IME Higher quality OSS comes from...

1. Tightly run pivotal projects which are widely used (the most obvious
one being the Linux kernel itself, but also gnu dev tools).
2. OSS written by one or two skilled enthusiasts (small is beautiful
utils etc)
3. OSS that was once commercial software and/or was backed by
businesses (e.g. open office)

The rest is a mixed bag from great to awful.   A huge variation also
exists in CSS but what generally happens is that CSS which is very poor
tends to fail commercially sooner or later while more successful
software tends to evolve over many releases.   'failed' OSS doesn't
dissapear, it hangs around on sourceforge and at least has the chance
someone might come and rescue it (though in practice this doesn't seem
to happen).

.