3 ms·
I think it just shows that open source isn't immune to the same kinds of problems that plague commercial software. As the market for a product expands, so too
by fnid 17y ago
I think it just shows that open source isn't immune to the same kinds of problems that plague commercial software. As the market for a product expands, so too do the features people require for the software to work within an ecosystem of other software. More hardware to support requires more code, bigger systems.
- ramy_d 17y agoindeed, it will be interesting to see how this issue gets tackled, if at all.
- loup-vaillant 17y agoOff topic: You wrote "commercial", while the correct term was "proprietary". You're not the only one. If I recall correctly, "Open source" was designed specifically to avoid this mistake. Apparently, that failed.
- skwiddor 17y agoMy operating system is open source but I bought it. What kind of software is it?
- foole 17y agoscamware? ;)
- TomOfTTB 17y agoI think this shows the amount of bloat in an Open Source package increases with how widely used the project becomes. As an article posted a couple days ago on HN pointed out about 75% of Linux development is done by corporations these days. Those corporations often times create the same "good enough" code that most proprietary developers do. Now the theory behind Open Source is that developers around the world can see bloat and fix it. But with very few exceptions the corporate developers aren't going to make their code more efficient. So you have 75% of developers creating bloated code and at best 25% left to fix it. Meaning the amount of bloated code easily overwhelms those volunteers who are willing and able to fix it.
- shin_lao 17y agoThe only important factor on code quality is the quality of the people working on it. Open source or proprietary doesn't change anything.