3 ms·

It isn't irrelevant if you're a proponent of open source (but not necessarily free) software, and want to argue its main advantage is better software through co

by psawaya 16y ago

It isn't irrelevant if you're a proponent of open source (but not necessarily free) software, and want to argue its main advantage is better software through collaboration. That argument is challenged by the large amount of "irrelevant" and inferior open source software, because it suggests that better quality software isn't always a consequence of going open source. Free software advocates don't have to fight that particular battle, since software freedom for them is the end, and not a means.

dasil003 16y ago
That's a terrible strawman though. By being open source the quality could be improved by anyone at any time. That software could be proprietary and it would be equally poor and irrelevant.
- psawaya 16y ago
  It could be, but it often isn't. One could imagine someone arguing against open source software, saying there isn't enough interest or talent to maintain all of the open source projects in existence. I think the article we're commenting on was written in response to that argument. I agree with you about proprietary software, but that model is rarely attacked in the way open source and free software is.
  - dasil003 16y ago
    Well if someone came to me with such an argument I would say it's silly to judge open source software by the long tail of least-successful projects. I mean no one chooses anything by focusing on the worst representatives of a category. People aren't evaluating the least-maintained open-source software any more than they are evaluating all the dead and gone software to be found in bargain basement bins. There's plenty of great free, open-source, and proprietary software out there, and many interesting debates to be had about the merits of competing packages. If some pointy-hair insisted on an obtuse argument about how all the crap projects on SourceForge are diluting the power of open source, I would get another job and let him replace me with someone with a higher tolerance for incompetence.
rmc 16y ago
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. The more important metric is to measure is how good the top 10% (of each) is.

by psawaya 16y ago

dasil003 16y ago

That's a terrible strawman though. By being open source the quality could be improved by anyone at any time. That software could be proprietary and it would be equally poor and irrelevant.

psawaya 16y ago
It could be, but it often isn't. One could imagine someone arguing against open source software, saying there isn't enough interest or talent to maintain all of the open source projects in existence. I think the article we're commenting on was written in response to that argument. I agree with you about proprietary software, but that model is rarely attacked in the way open source and free software is.
- dasil003 16y ago
  Well if someone came to me with such an argument I would say it's silly to judge open source software by the long tail of least-successful projects. I mean no one chooses anything by focusing on the worst representatives of a category. People aren't evaluating the least-maintained open-source software any more than they are evaluating all the dead and gone software to be found in bargain basement bins. There's plenty of great free, open-source, and proprietary software out there, and many interesting debates to be had about the merits of competing packages. If some pointy-hair insisted on an obtuse argument about how all the crap projects on SourceForge are diluting the power of open source, I would get another job and let him replace me with someone with a higher tolerance for incompetence.

rmc 16y ago

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. The more important metric is to measure is how good the top 10% (of each) is.