Exon said:
Deadlines maybe, but what is the reprocussion if they aren't met ?
Nothing. You're not getting paid, so you don't lose many.
You can just
blame it on being busy with your real work (which it
probably would be
due too) ...
Not true. Many large OSS projects (Apache, Samba, Linux, GNU,
openssl, openssh, ..., the list goes on and on and on) are
funded by organisations and/or companies (FSF, Dell, IBM,
RedHat, to name a few) that expect deadlines to be met. If
they stop developing (fast enough), funds will be cut and
people will lose their jobs.
Which involves money, like I said ...
The main difference
between proprietary vendors and OSS is that things gets
fixed faster,
and if you don't think it gets done fast enough you can
always fix it
yourself.
I can fix things where I work currently, myself. Whats the
difference ?
You can't fix it if you bought it closed source.
I see, you are talking about _purchased_ software. Well sure, that's
an advantage... but really, how many people make use of it ? And maybe
it's appropriate for some people, but (obviously) the typical end-user
couldn't care at all about that aspect. (i.e. the typical user
corporations aim for...)
The main difference between OSS and commercial is you are
getting paid
for one. This affects your priorities, hence what gets
attention. Need
to beat your competitor out the door, etc, etc, etc... Business
priorities outweigh the development ones.
The problem is, they shouldn't. The fact is, they will. And always
will. As long as customers are happy to receive faulty products...
Then the development issues _become_ business ones, and it
will hurt
the business if they don't meet XXX standard, or whatever.
I wholeheartedly agree. Business decisions + software =
shoddy implementation. OSS removes the business decisions and
leaves the programmers to thrive in excellence.
But you say "OSS" projects are "funded" by corporate customers. This -
money - introduces "business" decisions... (i.e how to spend the
money, and how to get more of it).
