> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:37 AM, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
> I think software libre's value in being used in non-public settings is
> mostly in having a solid example ready at hand of something
> high-quality that is collectively owned. People may not stumble on
> the notion by themselves, but I've managed to leave a person or two
> with their gears turning.
>
> --
> Andy
hmmm. my experience is that open source gets a bad reputation for deserved and undeserved reasons:
1. there are bugs. all software's gonna have them. business sees that developer time gets spent fixing the open source tools instead of working on an application and/or web site. business gets pissed and realize the 'hidden cost' of open sores and/or business just makes everyone work more and the open source fanatics will "donate" their spare time just so the open sores doesn't get the bad rap. niiiiiiiiiiice.
2. business has other problems and conveniently blames it all on open source. I constantly hear, "you get what you pay for" whenever PHP, apache, and other tools are mentioned. Never mind that they would do the same thing were we working with Microsoft -- and not a few times I've seen business blame MS for what is only tangentially an MS issue. It's really a problem with the way the company is operating, but MS is a convenient scapegoat. In this case, now they are just blaming the decision to move to open source. niiiiiiiiiiiiice.
anyway, have i mentioned that I'm irritated when I have to listen to the "you get what you pay for" open source sux crowd and then turn around and listen to the make me want to puke on their shoes crowd of MS boosters? Very irritating.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)