Un article pointé par /. sur les prétendus myths de l'open source. Et bien cela ne vole pas bien haut.
L'auteur mélange encore une fois libre et gratuit, balance ces évidences gratuites: "But it's also true that in many respects, Windows kicks Linux's ass in terms of usability and GUI refinements." (pour moi le seul derniers pb de linux, c'est les drivers), et parle de la surabondance de choix pourtant déjà pris en charge par les distributions,...
M'enfin si vous voulez vous faire votre opinion :
http://www.neilgunton.com/open_source_myths/(...)
Journal "Open Source Myths"
26
juil.
2004
# le point 4
Posté par plagiats . Évalué à 2.
Le monsieur nous dit que le proprio c'est bien parce qu'il n'y a qu'une ligne directrice. et qu'avec l'open source on a tendance a faire beaucoup de programmes à tout faire.
je crois rever. c'est vrai, les logiciels "open source" (il ne dit pas libre) sont complexes, sans but, tiens par exemple wget: une vraie usine à gaz. mozilla? ca ne se limite pas à internet, ca fait même éditeur de texte! kbear? ca sert à faire du graphisme en plus des transferts par ftp. xchat? c'est pas la plateforme multimédia vidéo avec jeux de morpions sur le coté droit et webcam en bas à gauche? ah, je confond avec autre chose? MSN? ah c'est proprio? mais Word, il ne fait que traitement de texte c'est bien ca? Jamais on aura l'idée de mettre l'outil de gravure dans un menu de l'interface graphique quand même?
tsssssss
[^] # Re: le point 4
Posté par MsK` . Évalué à 2.
[^] # Re: le point 4
Posté par plagiats . Évalué à 3.
[^] # Re: le point 4
Posté par dawar (site web personnel) . Évalué à 2.
[^] # Re: le point 4
Posté par fat_cartman . Évalué à 1.
Pour ma part, je trouve pratique qu'on puisse tout faire avec n'importe quel logiciel, ca s'appelle (parfois) de l'intégration, mais en tous cas ca permet aux informaticiens lambda d'utiliser leur PC sans se farcir 400 pages de docs. Pour les autres (ceux qui savent réellement ce qu'ils font), il peuvent toujours utiliser les logiciels adéquats sans regarder les "multi-usage".
# Et hop un mail
Posté par Jerome Herman . Évalué à 10.
Désolé c'est en anglais... C'ets un poil agressif, mais c'est lui qui a commencé...
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it"
The key motto in successfull open source project is : "release often, release early." Most of the projects I know (open source or not)litterally crave for bug reports. Of course there will be the occasional "send a patch" or "do it yourself" answer. But it is rare. Most of the time developpers actually welcome bugs reports. In fact there are a lot of open sources tools (such as bugzilla) who only job is to facilitate bug reports. Of course if the idea of filling a simple form to have your problems solved is considered to big an effort, and you prefer to sulk on an inapropriate public forum then you will get what you deserved (truly, it is like playing with a kite during a storm).
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems"
The keyword here is necessity. If you really need a new function, a correction or a compatiblity feature, you can add it. If you personnally are not gifted enough to do it, then you can pay someone to have it added. Try asking Oracle, Microsoft or Adobe to add whatever function you or your business need. Please send me a copy of their answer if you do, I am sure this could be worth a good laugh.
3. "All software should be free"
Free as bird, Neil, free as a bird. What this phrase meeans is that when you put whatever amount of work, creativity or datas into an application you should be able to get it back and transfer it onto another application without pain.
My job right now is to extract datas from old VMS boxes. I also envoyed coverting photodraw pictures to open standards just so that a friend of mine could get back the equivalent of two months of work (photodraw has been discontinued, and tend to crash severly on XP). As for not paying money for an application or a system, nobody important in the open-source world ever said something like that. In fact even if you get the application for no fee at all, you still have to pay for support, paper documentation, audit etc.
Next time somebody ask you to make a program just explain them that you can develop this either on your own with sources closed or with the open source community. Tell them that the second option will give them full access to the code, the liberty of getting rid of you if you do not satisfy them as a dev (because somebody else will be able to finish/maintain your work) and that they might also get free upgrade and maintenance if the application seduces the community. It might surprise you, but a lot of people are willing to pay a large extra for the second option.
4. "Open Source software is always better than closed, proprietary software"
In terms of quality and fonctionalities there are of course a lot of proprietary software that are better than their open-source equivalent. But they are fewer each day. Furthermore if you need something specific (and 99 times out of 100 you will) in the proprietary context you will very likely have to find exteriors tricks and fixes to have a program fit your needs, making the best program in the world unreliable or very hard to maintain (especially when the guy who made those fixes left the company). Need I talk about the open-source alternative ?
5. "Scratching the personal itch"
This is "Scratching the personal itch" versus "Scratching the general itch". Most software editors are only interressed in almost solving a problem that looks quite like yours. There are of course exceptions, but they are rare. It is the 80/20 law, make a program generic enough to appeal a maximum of customers and don't bloat it with exceptions that only a negligible fraction of people will use. If you need something specific, you will have to pay someone to add it. If your application is proprietary he won't be able to had what you asked in a clean way. On the other hand chances are that among the open-source jungle someone with the exact same problem already developped a solution. Furthermore the KISS (keep it simple, stupid !) ideology often makes it easy to aggregate simple programs inot something that does exactly what you want.
6. "More choice is always better"
If you RTFM ! Need I say more ? I know having to read a book or manual about computers is considered a grave insult today, but you had to read a manuel to set the clock on your VCR, well believe it or not a computer is way more complex than a VCR. Furthermore there are way more programs under windows than under all open-sourced OSes. So sticking to proprietary won't help you on this one...
7. Conclusion: It's Not So Simple
You are right it is not, so stop seeing only what you want to see and give an honest shot at Open-source.
Even though there are flaws in opensource (mainly clashes of ego) it works well enough for IBM to buy. And guess what ? They have been doing computer stuff for even longer than you have.
Kha
[^] # Re: Et hop un mail
Posté par Flink . Évalué à 3.
# Free = libre, pas forcément gratuit
Posté par BAud (site web personnel) . Évalué à 2.
sur /. un bon article de janvier 2003 est cité
http://www.shirky.com/writings/information_price.html(...) comme quoi le prix de l'information ne cesse de chuter et qu'il va falloir s'adapter ;-) et que certains doivent adapter leur business model.
Faire son truc dans son coin, se faire rémunérer c'est bien (faut bien vivre), après que ce même "truc" puisse être utilisé par quelqu'un d'autre, je suis de ceux qui pensent que c'est mieux, voire si je peux obtenir des améliorations au travers de cette démarche j'y aurai gagné au passage (et celui que j'ai/qui m'a aidé aussi). ça [ne] m'a [plus] l'air utopiste, [merci la GPL] surtout que c'est gagnant / gagnant
# le site
Posté par matiphas . Évalué à 4.
Avez vous un peu parcouru les site ?
Non ?
J'ai fait un peu le tri pour vous :
-> http://www.neilgunton.com/(...) (le debut)
-> http://www.neilgunton.com/reasons/(...)
Je pense que le gars a fait preuve d'esprit critique, ce qui manque un peu parfois.
Suivre le flux des commentaires
Note : les commentaires appartiennent à celles et ceux qui les ont postés. Nous n’en sommes pas responsables.