|FROM ||Ron Guerin
|SUBJECT ||Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Eric Raymond's tips for effective open source
|From lestw-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com Tue Jul 28 17:05:32 2009
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id n6SL5Ua2028122
for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:05:32 -0400
Received: (from majordomo-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id n6SL5Td3028119
for hangout-outgoings; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:05:29 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: majordomo set sender to lestw-hangout-at-nylxs.com using -f
Received: from broadway.vnetworx.net (broadway.vnetworx.net [18.104.22.168])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id n6SL5QT6028116
for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:05:29 -0400
Received: (qmail 6728 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jul 2009 21:05:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.33?) (22.214.171.124)
by broadway.vnetworx.net with SMTP
for ; 28 Jul 2009 21:05:24 -0000
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:05:21 -0400
From: Ron Guerin
User-Agent: Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (Windows/20090605)
Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Eric Raymond's tips for effective open source
References: <9e8718c60907271822k6efbd86bh3f40acb6b5511c2f-at-mail.gmail.com> <4A6E885A.5080001-at-vnetworx.net> <9e8718c60907281233r5eb1428exa3a99f7c079a5884-at-mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
>> Joshua Zeidner wrote:
>>> anyone hear this latest anti-OSS management mantra?
>>> "Open Source: free as in kittens."
>> No, but that's rather disingenuous. Nobody has unwanted Open Source
>> show up on their doorstep needing to be fixed, fed, and given a full
>> round of shots, which is clearly the metaphor they're reaching for there.
> Hi Ron,
> Yes its typically used to address the fact that Open Source can
> sometimes be more expensive to maintain than its proprietary
> counterpart. -jmz
I just find it "dishonest". Yes, it can be. And tomorrow it can rain.
Open Source is not in and of itself a seal of quality. In fact much of
it is just as horrible as proprietary software tends to be. I can't
think of the correct term for it, but having this kind of discussion
with someone advancing this notion seems to be an automatic lose because
you're then implicitly accepting the false premise upon which it is based.