Why

[james_davis_nicoll]

Do so many companies seem to feel the need to upgrade their products into unusability?

Comments

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Nothing says "buy stock in headache remedies" quite like open source software interfaces.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

It's easy to point fingers at lots of open source software and the process under which it's written and deployed and disseminated, but honestly, I don't see much of a measurable difference in the quality, across the field as a whole, between open source, and closed source, software.

If the open source movement is guilty of anything it's making clear that the cost of robust, free, open software is that the creation space must also permit cohabitation with flaky, fragile, horribly maintained, free, open software whereas closed source, for-profit businesses can afford to sweep those kinds of things (mostly) into the dark closets of their own hallways before the public ever sees them.

Frankly, all things being equal, if I had to have the fruits of only one model or the other, I'd chose what the open source world has produced. Luckily, we don't, yet, have to make that choice.

[dsrtao]

Open source software *not* written for end-users tends to have much better install and config procedures than closed source. Web servers, that sort of thing.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

In the main, I agree. But for the most part, I'd also maybe suggest that the notion of "software written for end-users" can be largely thought of as a way for closed-source, for-profit vendors to package and sell their IP to customers that don't largely need most of the stuff in the package. Sort of like how cable companies argue that only by selling you 45 TV channels you have no interest in ever watching can they afford to sell you the 5 that you really do have an interest in.