Re: Oracle v. Google jury returns partial verdict, favoring Oracle

From: Pól <Pl_at_not.a.chance.ie>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 01:40:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4fab0e68$1_at_news.x-privat.org>


On 09/05/12 20:14, Sandman wrote:

>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?

>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something >> about it, at least in theory.

> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> house owners. Give or take :-D

Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).

All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus". FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front - you don't have vendor lock-in.

As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted into Windows in over a year.

But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".

I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before - people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus" - never...

As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...

Paul...

BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon. Received on Wed May 09 2012 - 19:40:06 CDT

Original text of this message