After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> On Aug 26, 3:48 pm, Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think DFS might be correct after all. This guy certain talks about
>> open-source trashware:
>>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2174730,00.asp
>>
>> Opinion: I recently took a look at Microsoft's most active
>> open-source projects and -- there's no polite way to say
>> this -- they are all junk.
>
> Your quote is slightly out of context.
Of course. But it is taken directly from the URL.
> It makes it seem like the code
> is junk, and some dumbass from eweek.com shouldn't be giving his
> opinion on that.
His name is Vaughn-Nichols, and he's freelance. He writes for eweek,
Linux magazines, and the IEEE Computer magazine, among others.
> Instead the main criticism is that it's not really
> open source. Most is built on proprietary technology, just source code
> is available. That does seem like an underhanded move, call it open
> source just because source code is available. The one thing I don't
> understand is some of the complaints about the Microsoft Blog open
> source program. He complains that there are already 5633 open source
> projects for blogging on sourceforge. So where were the complaints
> about #5633, #5000, #1000? Open source has the redundency problem more
> than anything, and he's going to complain about Microsoft joining the
> fray?
Feh.
--
Tux rox!
|
|
