161–165 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really want to be managed by an AI?
Artificial intelligence would be better than no intelligence. At least you know it'd be following a logical set of rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you don't think open source can produce higher quality software, and you don't have any evidence for anything. Fair enough. [edit - changed "produces" to "can produce"] - doesn't change my point.
No. I explained what I meant and you still don't seem to get it. Read what I said about the naysayers again. You asked for the historical evidence I mentioned and I gave you the example of the TCP/IP stack we're all using. I shouldn't have to say it but "open source" does not produce software, developers produce software. They might be working on a closed project or they might be working on an open one. The open/clos…
Now you say: "The open/closed status of the project does not determine the quality of the software. The developers do."
So mentioning open source was irrelevant then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I explained what I meant and you still don't seem to get it. Read what I said about the naysayers again. You asked for the historical evidence I mentioned and I gave you the example of the TCP/IP stack we're all using. I shouldn't have to say it but "open source" does not produce software, developers produce software. They might be working on a closed project or they might be working on an open one. The open/clos…
Earlier you said: "What's different now is that there is historical evidence that open source projects can produce higher quality software than proprietary ones." Now you say: "The open/closed status of the project does not determine the quality of the software. The developers do." So mentioning open source was irrelevant then?
Here goes.
What are the arguments _against_ open source?
What if someone says, "Open source means poor quality"?
You can look back on the last 15 years, choose some examples of open source software and rebut that with evidence.
I would make this rebuttal.
You apparently would as well.
Now, what are the arguments _for_ open source?
You could say "Open source produces high quality software." Note: Not "can produce" but "produces". As in always.
You could say that.
I wouldn't.
I wouldn't make that argument.
I would argue open source make sense because the source can be reviewed and corrected if necessary, without being dependent on a proprietary vendor.
Hope this is clear.
Fine. "6 hours maximum", says the author, for an app translated into English and Spanish that interfaces with a remote database and performs some user-initiated calculations, and also has a bunch of static pages. Before starting you must consult with at least a dozen people who know very little about Android and succinctly describe the capabilities of the smartphone and what sorts of applications are even possible. F…
Even if you were to divvy that up evenly, it would make the implementation 10% of the cost.. about 10k.. which is pretty cheap on a "work for hire" basis of a software house for a software developer.
Now I look at this, it's actually quite cheap !!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the governments defense, I think big corporations routinely overpay for web development and marketing expenses. Aanecdotally, a girl I know who works for a pharmaceutical company said they spent $60,000 on a three page web site. Then I sit in Starbucks and listen to some freelancer get reamed for charging $1,000 to build and manage some guy's website. One would think that the price discrepancies for the same produ…
Neither the government nor large corporations qualify as the kind of free and ideal market you're referring to.
The purchase and sale of cocaine occurs in a market where virtually all sellers are capitalists. It is neither free nor ideal.