That's funny. When I make this exact point here on HackerNews I get downvoted to oblivion.
Open Source gives you potential to build a rocket to the moon. But it requires money and time and people willing to mind the code, and people with humble attitudes willing to accept when they've made mistakes and patch the code.
Quality Assurance requires effort, and that's where the fallacy of "Free" software really comes from. If you're not paying for it, you're going to pay for it. (Either by being the QE team and fixing bugs yourself or by living with buggy software.)
The article wasn't particularly good, which may explain that.
So it's not that you think the article isn't very good but instead it just isn't? Bold statements like this need an explanation...
Stating that the article isn't very good and using it as an explanation as to why someone's comment was downvoted without giving any reasons does not really contribute to the discussion and also does not prove your point. Just because awalton has a different opinion does not mean that he/she is wrong.
So it's not that you think the article isn't very good but instead it just isn't? Bold statements like this need an explanation...
First off, everything I say is "according to my opinion". That is implied and I don't have to explicitly state it on every sentence I write (especially on sentences that already sound like opinions).
Second, it's really not a bold statement. Read the other comments here—quite a lot of them are critical and the top rated ones all have excellent points. Given that, claiming the article isn't very good isn't much of a stretch. You want reasons? Read the rest of the %$#@! comments.
Now, my comment may have been on the pithy side, but I found it particularly funny that the guy was commenting about how he agreed with the article, complaining that when he expresses the same sentiment on HN he gets downvoted, but nearly every other comment on the story was attacking its shallow understanding of Free Software/Open Source, cryptographic library programmers, and virtually every other point it tried to make. IE, he appears to have same misguided opinions as the article's author, but not the self awareness to enlighten himself.
Comments
That's funny. When I make this exact point here on HackerNews I get downvoted to oblivion.
Open Source gives you potential to build a rocket to the moon. But it requires money and time and people willing to mind the code, and people with humble attitudes willing to accept when they've made mistakes and patch the code.
Quality Assurance requires effort, and that's where the fallacy of "Free" software really comes from. If you're not paying for it, you're going to pay for it. (Either by being the QE team and fixing bugs yourself or by living with buggy software.)
The article wasn't particularly good, which may explain that.
The "Free" in "Free Software" has never meant "No Cost". It has always meant "Freedom". When you start talking about cost you are missing the point.
So it's not that you think the article isn't very good but instead it just isn't? Bold statements like this need an explanation...
Stating that the article isn't very good and using it as an explanation as to why someone's comment was downvoted without giving any reasons does not really contribute to the discussion and also does not prove your point. Just because awalton has a different opinion does not mean that he/she is wrong.
First off, everything I say is "according to my opinion". That is implied and I don't have to explicitly state it on every sentence I write (especially on sentences that already sound like opinions).
Second, it's really not a bold statement. Read the other comments here—quite a lot of them are critical and the top rated ones all have excellent points. Given that, claiming the article isn't very good isn't much of a stretch. You want reasons? Read the rest of the %$#@! comments.
Now, my comment may have been on the pithy side, but I found it particularly funny that the guy was commenting about how he agreed with the article, complaining that when he expresses the same sentiment on HN he gets downvoted, but nearly every other comment on the story was attacking its shallow understanding of Free Software/Open Source, cryptographic library programmers, and virtually every other point it tried to make. IE, he appears to have same misguided opinions as the article's author, but not the self awareness to enlighten himself.
If your point is that Open Source needs better funding models, I agree with you. (See my profile.)