4 ms·

Depends on the open-source project. For e.g. Apache, Linux, MySQL, you're right it's unfair. For things like RoR, it's pretty accurate. For small projects, i

Depends on the open-source project. For e.g. Apache, Linux, MySQL, you're right it's unfair. For things like RoR, it's pretty accurate. For small projects, it's definitely true, but then again most companies don't depend on relatively unknown OSS projects.

terrellm 17y ago
I'm not seeing how RoR is any different than other OSS. Could you elaborate?
- smartbear 17y ago
  When you use RoR and, say, 10-20 gems, you spend a lot of time discovering bugs in those things, fixing them, contributing them back, and hoping the contri's are taken. None of that is free, of course. Whereas I've used Apache (both the C-based web server and Tomcat), Linux, and MySQL for years, and never once did I have to patch something myself. The quality of the software and updates were sufficient; certainly just as good as any commercial product. This is what I mean about it being different. Of course commercial software has bugs etc as well! The difference is there's a place to complain and other developers are responsible for making the fixes. Of course some companies are good about this and others aren't, and the same can be said for OSS projects. In the end, to SOME extent this is FUD, but specifically in the context within this post, it's not FUD, because the argument is specifically for a company who is CLAIMING awesome support for bug-fixes. You can't just take my quote out of context and then argue against it!
  - terrellm 17y ago
    I wasn't trying take anything out of context - I was just trying to gain a better understanding of why RoR was mentioned. Thanks for the clarification and I agree it can be a challenge keeping up with any software that is modular and utilizes code developed by volunteers and hobbyists. Whether it by Python or even .NET using 3rd party components.
  - hasanove 17y ago
    My and I am sure a lot of others' experience with RoR and gems/plugins is completely opposite.

terrellm 17y ago

I'm not seeing how RoR is any different than other OSS. Could you elaborate?

smartbear 17y ago
When you use RoR and, say, 10-20 gems, you spend a lot of time discovering bugs in those things, fixing them, contributing them back, and hoping the contri's are taken. None of that is free, of course. Whereas I've used Apache (both the C-based web server and Tomcat), Linux, and MySQL for years, and never once did I have to patch something myself. The quality of the software and updates were sufficient; certainly just as good as any commercial product. This is what I mean about it being different. Of course commercial software has bugs etc as well! The difference is there's a place to complain and other developers are responsible for making the fixes. Of course some companies are good about this and others aren't, and the same can be said for OSS projects. In the end, to SOME extent this is FUD, but specifically in the context within this post, it's not FUD, because the argument is specifically for a company who is CLAIMING awesome support for bug-fixes. You can't just take my quote out of context and then argue against it!
- terrellm 17y ago
  I wasn't trying take anything out of context - I was just trying to gain a better understanding of why RoR was mentioned. Thanks for the clarification and I agree it can be a challenge keeping up with any software that is modular and utilizes code developed by volunteers and hobbyists. Whether it by Python or even .NET using 3rd party components.
- hasanove 17y ago
  My and I am sure a lot of others' experience with RoR and gems/plugins is completely opposite.