[ale] "What's So Bad About Microsoft?"

[Joe Knapka]

Dow Hurst <dhurst at kennesaw.edu> writes:

> You just don't get much anymore from closed source without paying thru
> the nose compared to the offerings of open source.  We know that MS is
> security wise much less secure and with constant large dangerous holes
> being found. That will not end for a long time.  The source is
> available under Linux while costs thru the nose for closed source.
> The motives of closed source companies tend to be selfish while open
> source projects are selfless or "less selfish" in nature.

Or equally selfish in a completely different (that is, non-monetary)
domain. I assume everyone here has read "Cathedral+Bazaar" etc.

>  Software
> installation is much more advanced in the open source world over
> closed source.

IMO, quality software installation in the OSS world is all over the
map. The best-of-breed OSS installation tech seems to be generally
superior to the closed source world, but I find I frequently have to
deal with software that isn't so nicely packaged. And even though,
say, APT is technically superior to InstallShield, it doesn't look as
cool because it's character-based.

[snip]

-- Joe

-- 
Resist the feed.
--
If you really want to get my attention, send mail to
jknapka .at. kneuro .dot. net.