cglaeser 0 Posted February 18, 2011 When I said 'proprietary' I meant software. I'm not going to assemble a mobo and processor out of sticks and mud... Yeah, I know. I've always viewed this thinking as odd, but I know it's common. Tangle products have value, intangible products are worthless. Chip designers should get a salary. Programmers should work for free. Best, Christopher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quantum 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Programmers should work for free. Programmers should work for FUN. Seriously, I see what you're saying. But each of us has a talent, and if we pool them we all benefit. Now, on to finding a decent camera... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Programmers should work for free. Programmers should work for FUN. Seriously, I see what you're saying. But each of us has a talent, and if we pool them we all benefit. Now, on to finding a decent camera... Yeah but Programmers need to eat also. Time is money! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cglaeser 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Seriously, I see what you're saying. But each of us has a talent, and if we pool them we all benefit. Hey, if you find a group that pooled their talents to produce the perfect VMS app for your requirements and it's free, I'm all for that. The part that leaves me scratching my head is if someone finds the perfect VMS app for your requirements (yep, it does that, yep, yep, yep, yep, it does all those) but it costs money, you walk on by. I think we were genetically programmed thousands of years ago to barter based on weight. Our brains can't grasp this relatively new concept that something with no weight can have value. Best, Christopher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quantum 0 Posted February 18, 2011 I think it's not about the cost. I like to think it's about visible sourcecode which is peer reviewed and checked for backdoors, functionality, etc. All of us have paid for countless apps that turned out to be worthless, buggy, or unsuitable. This is exactly why I am so suspicious. You don't run such a risk with something tangible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 18, 2011 I think it's not about the cost. I like to think it's about visible sourcecode which is peer reviewed and checked for backdoors, functionality, etc. All of us have paid for countless apps that turned out to be worthless, buggy, or unsuitable. This is exactly why I am so suspicious. You don't run such a risk with something tangible. The thing is, Open source software also has the same issues mentioned above. In fact as for backdoors and exploits, I would be more apt to trust something that is not open to every tom, dick and harry. Just because you have say 10 guys working on some code, doesnt mean they know everything, there will always be someone else that knows more and who could come in and exploit it .. and now they have the code, they dont even have to 2nd guess. If open source, Id think its best to at least keep the code among a private group. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cglaeser 0 Posted February 18, 2011 I think it's not about the cost. I like to think it's about visible sourcecode which is peer reviewed and checked for backdoors, functionality, etc. Yeah, sure, right, like there are no back doors in any of the hardware you are willing to pay for. All of us have paid for countless apps that turned out to be worthless, buggy, or unsuitable. This is exactly why I am so suspicious. You don't run such a risk with something tangible. Thanks, for the laughs. You are knee slapping hilarious. Best, Christopher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quantum 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Hm, how old are you? Well I am not going to clarify and we are way OT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
musher 0 Posted February 18, 2011 In fact as for backdoors and exploits, I would be more apt to trust something that is not open to every tom, dick and harry. Just because you have say 10 guys working on some code, doesnt mean they know everything, there will always be someone else that knows more and who could come in and exploit it .. and now they have the code, they dont even have to 2nd guess. If open source, Id think its best to at least keep the code among a private group. The view you express is one I find common among managers dealing with software in business. It is based on a bit of a misunderstanding of the open source model. What Quantum refers to by "peer review" is not 10 programmers who happen to be on a development team, but thousands of individuals (or tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions in the case of software with a large installed base like apache http) who are willing to take the time to look at software before using it or when figuring out problems. This model relies on leveraging these large numbers of reviewers to ensure security (and functionality) by design rather than incorporating security through obscurity as part of the model as in commercial closed source software. At least one flaw in the 'keep it secret' model is that it is susceptible to a well known problem with smaller teams of folks who work with each other--everyone tends to start thinking about the problem in the same way. This has a tendency to allow certain defects to slip past the whole group undetected. You are correct that obscuring the design incrementally increases the difficulty for taking hostile advantage over the system, but I submit that a look at your periodic Windows updates demonstrates that approach is not perfect. Personally, my experience is that open source is generally more reliable and bugs/vulnerabilities are addressed more quickly. It also has the added advantage that you can fix a bug yourself if it's a mission critical problem for your situation. Ultimately, I think the decision about open source/vs commercial closed source is not best answered by asking "what's better". I think it's better answered by asking "what resources do I have to take advantage of the strengths of either". Interestingly (to me anyway), I am dealing with a bug in commercial software interacting with the HD3500 (which is what brought me to this thread). While I'm very happy with the support I'm receiving and with the camera software, I suspect it would be more efficient for everyone involved if I could just debug the code locally since the vendor cannot reproduce my problem. Alas, since it appears the problem likely lies in a Windows driver, that option is not available. And now we've at least brought the discussion back to the Sanyo camera! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 18, 2011 The view you express is one I find common among managers dealing with software in business. actually im a programmer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 18, 2011 but I submit that a look at your periodic Windows updates demonstrates that approach is not perfect. So open source software does not have updates? Bugs? Fixes? Most people use open source software for one reason, cause its free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cglaeser 0 Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Personally, my experience is that open source is generally more reliable and bugs/vulnerabilities are addressed more quickly. I said it before and I'll say it again. If you can find an open source VMS that meets your requirements, use it. That's what I would do. This isn't about more reliable or more anything if the open source version doesn't even exist. When someone starts explaining why they refuse to pay for proprietary software, sometimes the arguments don't make any sense. Consider the back door argument. Does anyone honestly believe you can build a system with disk drives and routers and surveillance cameras with no back doors? Have you even looked to see where those components are made? Then there's the refusal to use any proprietary software. Where do you purchase a router or camera that does not include proprietary software? Regarding the subject of reliability, why is this an issue for software but not hardware? So, let's see, you won't pay for proprietary software because you can't fix any defects, but are willing to pay for a disk drive because you can, what, open it up and fix it with a screwdriver? None of these dogs will hunt. The fact is, hardware has all these same issues. Best, Christopher Edited February 19, 2011 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
musher 0 Posted February 18, 2011 actually im a programmer. Rory, Ya, me too. Clearly any non-trivial software will have bugs. A closed source model does not necessarily protect software from hostile exploits. It's not clear that hiding the design contributes more to security than opening the design, though the evidence seems to point to actively used open source as being more secure/less buggy. I agree, lots of users base their choice on price alone. That's probably why Walmart does so well. Still, I'm convinced one can sometimes make a sound business case for open source vs commercial software based on 'total costs'--which would include the hidden costs associated with quality problems. From a developer's standpoint it's an interesting challenge to decide whether to free or open source license your work vs keep it as commercial software. Pros and cons on both sides of the fence there as well. A bit dated, but here's an interesting article on the subject of bugs--windows vs linux. http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2004/12/66022 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
