A sad new low for lack of teamwork

[Klinke]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should immediately switch to Ubuntu,and use only free open source audio applications, then you can see for yourself how fast development is, compared to successful commercial projects. Not to mention how stable and bug "free".

Are we talking about open source in general or open source audio applications? If we talk in general I can also say: Try to develop a website without open source software just using commercial projects. As a software developer you live in a world of extremely successful FOSS projects, e.g. the boost library for C++ etc.. So claiming "facts" like commercial is a superior approach then open source in general sounds really strange to me.

If we talk about applications I would agree to some point that open source software has a disadvantages, namely that e.g. interface design and documentation isn't the strongest skill of developers, and often people that a good in this field are missing in those projects. But I would already disagree when it comes to the number of bugs, I have enough experience in my career how less (some) commercial vendors care about those, and are even willing to release new products where everybody knows that they are unusable in the current state because the cash flow is needed. And also often features doesn't get the same love then what people do in there free time projects. If you want you can check the manual I linked to in my last post and try to name a DAW that has a comparable support for the Mackie Control.

[whyterabbyt]

Tell me, does Ubuntu, or Linux Mint develop as quickly as Windows 10? How would they, even when there's people working on the surface, it still has the same basement. And, how would they, if there's not remotely the same amount of people working on them, or people ABLE to work on them, when their business is elsewhere. Canonical's business is server applications e.g., and Linux Mint is sponsored, and funded. How, on earth, would they be able to develop as quickly? Guess if we all just pray enough, then we can all imagine that they work as quickly.

In conflating the rate of software development with the number of people doing the development, you have dismissed yourself from the argument on the basis of lack of credibility.

Come back when you've understood Mythical Man-Month.

[chk071]

You do know that there is a difference between company making use of open source stuff, and Linux, and pure open source projects though, right?

What difference might that be? Try defining 'pure open source'.

Google uses a whole lot of open source stuff, for example Chromium for their browser, and their OS. Or the Open Handset stuff for Android. Yet, their apps, for Chrome, and their OS's, are closed source. That's a difference to a pure open source project like Ubuntu, or other Linux distros. You see how fast Google's stuff develops, and you see how darn slow Ubuntu develops ATM. And yes, of course there's also difference between different commercial projects, naturally, if one is more successful than the others. Still, Ubuntu is absolutely snail speed ATM, and Linux Mint wouldn't be nothing without their sponsors, and people supporting them.

[chk071]

Tell me, does Ubuntu, or Linux Mint develop as quickly as Windows 10? How would they, even when there's people working on the surface, it still has the same basement. And, how would they, if there's not remotely the same amount of people working on them, or people ABLE to work on them, when their business is elsewhere. Canonical's business is server applications e.g., and Linux Mint is sponsored, and funded. How, on earth, would they be able to develop as quickly? Guess if we all just pray enough, then we can all imagine that they work as quickly.

In conflating the rate of software development with the number of people doing the development, you have dismissed yourself from the argument on the basis of lack of credibility.

Mhm, if you say so. Things can be so easy, right, if we strip it all down to a one-sentence reply, rather meant to supposedly prove someone wrong, instead of really stating the own opinion (where is it?).

[ghettosynth]

Tell me, does Ubuntu, or Linux Mint develop as quickly as Windows 10? How would they, even when there's people working on the surface, it still has the same basement. And, how would they, if there's not remotely the same amount of people working on them, or people ABLE to work on them, when their business is elsewhere. Canonical's business is server applications e.g., and Linux Mint is sponsored, and funded. How, on earth, would they be able to develop as quickly? Guess if we all just pray enough, then we can all imagine that they work as quickly.

I'm not going to even have a technical conversation with you until you actually do some reading. You simply don't understand. You don't even seem to realize that Mint and Ubuntu are primarily distributions of a large collection of software that is not developed by the same set of people. You seem to be completely clueless about the pace and character of linux kernel development and have no idea how many people are involved in open source vs closed source development. You seem to have no idea about the many and varied motivations for engaging in and supporting open software nor the varied entities that choose to do so.

I'm serious, you are out of your league. This isn't a conversation that you are sufficiently educated to have. Remember that teacher that told you there aren't any dumb questions? She was wrong, you are asking dumb questions. They're dumb because they are loaded with unfounded assumptions. You need to back up and re-asses your understanding of what open source actually is and what its role is in software development. You are trying to form an opinion about ideas without understanding them. You are like Trump supporters who say "he's a straight talker", or like Hillary supporters who say "it will be nice to have a woman in the white house." You're so ignorant of the ideas that you don't even know how bad your questions and lines of reasoning are. You're engaging in cargo cult ideology. Your perception is a dirt runway with a control tower made of bamboo and hope.

Don't take this personally man, I think that you're a cool dude, but you don't know anything about this and you don't even know that you don't know and it's annoying as f**k to everyone else who has experience.

[Gamma-UT]

You do know that there is a difference between company making use of open source stuff, and Linux, and pure open source projects though, right?

What difference might that be? Try defining 'pure open source'.

Google uses a whole lot of open source stuff, for example Chromium for their browser, and their OS. Or the Open Handset stuff for Android. Yet, their apps, for Chrome, and their OS's, are closed source. That's a difference to a pure open source project like Ubuntu, or other Linux distros. You see how fast Google's stuff develops, and you see how darn slow Ubuntu develops ATM. And yes, of course there's also difference between different commercial projects, naturally, if one is more successful than the others. Still, Ubuntu is absolutely snail speed ATM, and Linux Mint wouldn't be nothing without their sponsors, and people supporting them.

And that has what to do with the question? What is pure open source? All I can see in your attempted explanation is two organisations that make use of mixed open and closed source software. (Hint: you should probably look at how things like graphics are supported in modern OSs).

[chk071]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should immediately switch to Ubuntu,and use only free open source audio applications, then you can see for yourself how fast development is, compared to successful commercial projects. Not to mention how stable and bug "free".

Are we talking about open source in general or open source audio applications? If we talk in general I can also say: Try to develop a website without open source software just using commercial projects. As a software developer you live in a world of extremely successful FOSS projects, e.g. the boost library for C++ etc.. So claiming "facts" like commercial is a superior approach then open source in general sounds really strange to me.

So, what is in your opinion the advantage of making everything open source? I don't get it. What about people having own ideas, creating something unique. Should they share it with the world, and make it available for everyone, so everyone can benefit from the own ideas? Also, web development is something special, and you'll have to see the benefits of making that as open as it should. Same with programming languages. That is, though, entirely different to, for instance, creating an algorithm to develop a great sounding, CPU friendly filter. You can't expect everyone to just share that, so that every fool can implement it in his synth, and make a lot of money on the idea you'd rather have kept to yourself.

As it is always helpful to have the car comparison , you think that Volkswagen should share the design of their nwe Golf, so that the competition can jump on it, and make the new bestseller, and f*** up Volkswagen's business? Or that everyone should have the same chances, and we only have similar cars, for the same price, like in some weird commie countries? I don't think so. Quality, and performance has always been born from the own ideas, and motivation to be better, and to do better than others. From patriotism too, but, hey, that's a different topic, and also a very difficult topic for us germans, because every single spark of patriotism has been killed after what happened here 70 years ago.

[Klinke]

Tell me, does Ubuntu, or Linux Mint develop as quickly as Windows 10?

1.: I find it really difficult to see how quickly a OS is developed, as a OS is far more then it's interface that you are seeing
2.: After this experience (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=474157&start=60#p6628069) I wish Microsoft would develop Windows slower and with more caution

[chk071]

Tell me, does Ubuntu, or Linux Mint develop as quickly as Windows 10?

1.: I find it really difficult to see how quickly a OS is developed, as a OS is far more then it's interface that you are seeing

Ok, then let's rephrase the question. Do you think a project with 20, 30 employees can develop as quickly as a project with thousands of employees?

[whyterabbyt]

I think you peeps claiming that free open source projects develop as quick as commercial projects should

Since it was actually your hypothesis that there's a difference, its actually up to you to provide proof of that, not anyone else.

What proof should i provide?

Adequate proof.

Do you actually use software?

Yes, for about 40 years, across more platforms than you have teeth, from Cray mainframes to embedded systems, as a programmer, sysadmin, and educator.

Do you actually know anything whatsoever first-hand about software development?

Did you compare, for instance, how the development of Ubuntu is, compared to Windows or MacOS?

Yes. And have done so continuously since I was first made aware of Linux in the early 90s.

I think, yes, you do. But still, you don't want to see the point.

I see you claiming there's a point, and failing to back it up. So so far, the point isnt there to see, since its imaginary.

Which is weird, because, obviously, you are an intelligent person.

Well, I certainly avoid claiming things are facts just because they're my opinion, and I do my best to use logic rather than fallacy. You should both of those some time.

Next you're going to tell me that Libre Office is as progressed as MS Office? What a laugh, seriously. MS Office is better, and more progressed in ANY regard.

So we can add 'strawman' to the ever-lengthening list of fallacious arguments you're desparately relying on.

It doesnt even coherently fit your argument about development time; releases of the product as LibreOffice have actually been more frequent than StarOffice was as a closed-source product.

[Klinke]

So, what is in your opinion the advantage of making everything open source?

Did I claim that this should be the case? Can you please point me where I have wrote that? Of course I did like to have everything open source, but I'm not angry when someone tries to monetize his work, and it can be the case that I will develop closed source software by myself in the future (again).

Also, web development is something special, and you'll have to see the benefits of making that as open as it should. Same with programming languages. That is, though, entirely different to, for instance, creating an algorithm to develop a great sounding, CPU friendly filter. You can't expect everyone to just share that, so that every fool can implement it in his synth, and make a lot of money on the idea you'd rather have kept to yourself.

a.: Therefore I asked about what we are talking here.
b.: It was not different for programming languages and tools in the past, when I grow up it was usual that you have to pay a lot for your development tools. But this was not the point, it was about the general claim that commercial products are always superior then open source products.

Overall I must say it's annoying how you avoid to answer questions.

[chk071]

Did you compare, for instance, how the development of Ubuntu is, compared to Windows or MacOS?

Yes. And have done so continuously since I was first made aware of Linux in the early 90s.

Do you think it develops at the same pace as the said OS's? Do you think ANY Linux distro does?

[chk071]

Overall I must say it's annoying how you avoid to answer questions.

And i must say that it is very annoying (once again) how people dismiss facts, and try to talk everything good. Seriously, i had so much of that in the years i used Linux, and read about it in forums. My experiences with Linux and Open Source (yes, pure Open Source projects, not the stuff you build closed source on), were generally worse than with most closed source software. And still people insist that it is superior, and Linux is superior. Sorry, no, it isn't. Not at all.

Anyway, let's agree on disagreeing then. I certainly don't need an afternoon of pointless discussions either. How good that we all can use what we consider "better". Again, to figure out what you think it's better, try it, install Ubuntu on an older laptop you don't use anymore, install all audio software there is, or, install a Linux audio distro, and then see for yourself. If you get past installing a realtime kernel, configuring Jack, and all that mess, that is. I'm sure you do, being a computer geek and all that.

[.jon]

The irony of defending open source in a thread dedicated to promoting commercial, closed source plugins for open source advocates.

Why does the OP think that open source folks should use closed source products?

As someone who develop open source software in my free time (https://bitbucket.org/Klinkenstecker/cs ... manual.pdf) as in my professional career I would think I could count as open source folk too, nevertheless I use closed source products. Not everybody is so narrow-minded as you (but yes, some open source advocates are narrow-minded too, as the OP pointed out).

You didn't answer the question. Your history and personal opinions aren't interesting. You have a habit of avoiding discussion, try to improve.

[Klinke]

Tell me, does Ubuntu, or Linux Mint develop as quickly as Windows 10?

1.: I find it really difficult to see how quickly a OS is developed, as a OS is far more then it's interface that you are seeing

Ok, then let's rephrase the question. Do you think a project with 20, 30 employees can develop as quickly as a project with thousands of employees?

20, 30 software developer for linux? You are kidding, or?

I totally agree to ghettosynths last post, technical conversation with you is useless, as you just proven again (and I got the impression when I see your discussion style, conversations with you at all is useless).