3 ms·
I use it because it's free, in active development, and pretty much works well... ... and how many closed-source projects meet the same criteria? A few loss le
by mechanical_fish 17y ago
I use it because it's free, in active development, and pretty much works well...
... and how many closed-source projects meet the same criteria?
A few loss leaders here and there, I suppose: Flash, a few web browsers. Though John Gruber, among others, might dispute the statement that Flash "works well": http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/tablet_musings http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/tablet_musings
Although I do wonder how many people actively go through open source projects looking at code
Not that many people, really. Just the talented open-source developers, the ones who do important foundational work. Or the ones who want to become talented, and perhaps someday accomplish some significant foundational work. Or the ones who want to accomplish something that doesn't come right out of a can, which includes the majority of the Drupal and Rails programmers that I've met. Still, a small fraction of humanity.
But that misses the point. In an ideal world, nobody would ever need to read the code for open source projects: The code would work 100% of the time, and would do just what you want, and would have comprehensive and readable documentation. Even now, the open-source code I use works an astonishing percentage of the time. The point is that you don't want the one occasion when it stops working to grind your project to a halt for two years while you lobby the manufacturer for a new release, or beg for explanations of obscure algorithms, or pay thousands of dollars for a proprietary training course, or prostrate yourself before the author on the internet and beg for some attention to your particular problems:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034584 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034584
It's true that, paradoxically, people who work with open source tools don't spend a lot of time using or thinking about their ability to read the source code. They don't have to. On the rare occasions when they have to use the source, they just do it and move on, with relatively little loss of time and no worries.
- axod 17y ago>> ... and how many closed-source projects meet the same criteria? Most websites are closed source, free, and in active development. I think the model works well. If things are broken, they're usually fixed quickly as long as someone behind the website cares about it.
- lutorm 17y agoBut that's the point. They're only fixed as long as someone behind the website cares about it. The fact that you care about it helps not one bit.
- mechanical_fish 17y agoAre you kidding? Websites aren't free, especially the closed-source ones. [1] Ask my clients. Websites can be very cheap, provided your entire vision of web publishing is stuck in 1995: a bunch of $5/month web hosts full of cookie-cutter blogs that will fall over every time they get linked by anyone. But good web hosting costs money. Good web software with any custom feature whatsoever costs much, much more money. Designers cost money, and cost the time required to find them. Google are masters of the art of making ad-supported websites feel "free", but Google operates at massive scale, milking a giant cash cow whenever they need to support a loss leader for a while. Most other free sites come with very strict limitations: If their traffic drops below a certain point, they cease to be financially viable, whereupon they only last as long as a publisher is willing to pour time and money into them with no hope of return. That leads to phenomena like SEO-oriented blogs whose authors write with one eye firmly fixed on their ad traffic. Those are fine, in their role, but there are times when one wants something different. -- [1] That's "free as in beer". There are many websites built entirely on free software, of course, but those fail your first criterion.