Firefox is a PIG on memory var: Respectful critic - thanks.
art.alexion at verizon.net
Thu Oct 27 17:41:29 UTC 2005
Phillip Sc. Boegh wrote:
>> Phillip Sc. Boegh wrote:
> No I did not write this - I answered.
>>>> I feel like I hit a nerve on this one, hehehe.
>>> All right - but I think some newbees cannot distinguish between
>>> "applications that they have ordered and spend a lot of money for" and
>>> "applications that are kindly developed for all and voluntarily".
>>> You cannot compare open-source programs with commercial closed source
>>> because the close source developers can build in the open-source code
>>> fix some bugs - which they hold for themselves in close code. So we'll
>>> always be behind the commercial applications.
>> Nonsense. The strength of Open Source is its openness.
> Read inside - that is exactly what I wrote - the problem with proprietary
> software code is that it is close - but do we aggre that it is MUCH easier
> to include open code into close code than the oppersite way around?
> Therefore we will always be behind - and that is OK because we care for
> security more than new features!
I disagree. While proprietary software often incorporates features from
OSS, I think the incorporation of the codebase is rarer because it does not
work with the existing architecture and libraries of the proprietary code.
There is a built in inertia with commercial software that is dependent on a
lot more than "does it work better"?
arthur [at] alexion [dot] com
PGP fingerprint: 52A4 B10C AA73 096F A661 92D2 3B65 8EAC ACC5 BA7A
The attachment -- signature.asc -- is my electronic signature; no need for
More information about the ubuntu-users