U.N. report says open source produces better software (OpenSector)
The report says that OSS software is better for four primary reasons: More people looking for defects means more defects are found and fixed. Free from marketing considerations, developers release more fixes and improvements, more often. Proprietary software does not guarantee quality, in order to avoid legal liability. Source code availability allows users to fix, customize or improve on their own."
Posted Jan 30, 2004 23:57 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (4 responses)
Very useful for anyone talking to government bodies about free software.
Posted Jan 31, 2004 2:17 UTC (Sat)
by set (guest, #4788)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 31, 2004 2:38 UTC (Sat)
by xanni (subscriber, #361)
[Link]
Hope that helps,
Posted Jan 31, 2004 2:41 UTC (Sat)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Probably just an accident, the rest of the report is quite accurate.
Posted Jan 31, 2004 21:40 UTC (Sat)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted Jan 31, 2004 5:26 UTC (Sat)
by edgewood (subscriber, #1123)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jan 31, 2004 21:38 UTC (Sat)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted Jan 31, 2004 23:00 UTC (Sat)
by XERC (guest, #14626)
[Link] (2 responses)
I find the open source development model(though my dayjob is to develop a closed source program) to be the best and not just from the software's point of view. I use only free(dom compatiable) software at home, though I have a Windows license. I'm going to release all my hobby projects under GPL, after I get them to some usable state, but I certainly don't take the various reports, or other documents, released by the U.N., too seriously. Oh, and by the way, I don't support Sadam. As a matter of fact, I'm glad that this dictator was kicked off it's throne, even if the assertions regarding to some, whaterver, weapons was a fully made up story. It's just that, in this posting, I'm talking about, and making conclusions about, the U.N.. Regards,
Posted Jan 31, 2004 23:29 UTC (Sat)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 1, 2004 15:43 UTC (Sun)
by XERC (guest, #14626)
[Link]
I agree that some positive press releases from a widely known
Although not without it's glitches ("In 1994 Torvalds released the official GNU/Linux version 1.0"), it's worth a read. It's mostly stuff that we'd all know, but on pages 26 & 27 there's a list the FOSS policies of various developing countries.Free and open-source software: Implications for ICT policy and development
I dont see the glitch in your quote: 1.0 came out in 1994.Free and open-source software: Implications for ICT policy and development
(0.01 came out in 1991). Perhaps I am missing somethine else?
"GNU/Linux" can be used to refer to a Linux distribution which contains GNU software running on the Linux kernel. Linus Torvalds has never released such a distribution in 1994 or at any other time; he only releases the Linux kernel itself, which does not contain GNU code (though it is licensed under the GPL). The kernel itself should NOT be referred to as "GNU/Linux". This may just be an overenthusiastic search-and-replace error.Free and open-source software: Implications for ICT policy and development
*** Xanni ***
The dates for Torvalds' release is correct, but he only released Linux, not the whole OS.Free and open-source software: Implications for ICT policy and development
So maybe RMS should call them up and say Free and open-source software: Implications for ICT policy and development
RMS: "Hey, you shouldn't call it GNU/Linux, it's just Linux, otherwise you'll hear from
me!"
UN: "But wasn't it you who told us to..."
Life is confusing sometimes, if you really try
henrik
I was convinced of the superiority of the open development model, but if the UN thinks so, too, maybe I'd better rethink... <g>
Uh oh
Well, the UN is anti-american, just like Linux. What would you expect! Uh oh
;-)
henrik, always giving americans a hard time... in a friendly way.
Considering the fact, that the UN was an empty place, when the IraqUh oh
war started(UN's opinion didn't mean a thing to the U.S. president, G.W.Bush), and considering the fact, that the UN was silent when Estonia and other Baltic States were occupyed by the former Soviet Union, then I think that the UN is a pretty meaningless and powerless organization. Let's say, that the UN is just some kind of a formality or a nice show for leaving the public some nice, fake, impression that things are somewhat under control at the international level.
XERC
I certainly don't take the various reports, or other documents, released by the U.N., too seriously.Uh oh
It's not meant to be taken seriously by you. The report is written for people that don't know what free software is, most readers of LWN will find little or no new info in the report.
The report is important though, because it really strengthens our position when talking to politicians about free software.
Uups, I admit that I didn't get the point at first. Uups
organization is always good for the free software, even if it's
a weak and powerless organization and even if the press release
is a result of some random deviance in their understandings.