Re: What's the story with the "end of XP"?

In article <4677f748$0$1454$8404b019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <46778b0f$0$8382$8404b019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
What Chris is referring to, on the other hand, is safety-critical embedded systems. In that case it doesn't matter whether it is open or closed - you have no choice but to write good quality code. You have a lot of code reviews, so your code must stand up to scrutiny - your skills are as much on display as they are for an open source coder. It's a different world from the one CB is talking about.
I hope it's a different world to CB :-)
Also the tools I use, mainly closed source, are to the same high quality as the Sw we write.


*Some* of the tools will be of similar quality.

Yes. In the Embedded world it tends to be "most" rather than "some" as poor embedded tools don't last commercially.

But much of what you have around those tools, like the operating system on your desktop, is not.

The OS is normally Windows and that could be better.

And there are few development tools, regardless of the price, that are written to the same high standards as safety-critical embedded systems - to do so would be an absurd waste of time and money.

You are not correct in this assumption.

You don't require the same levels of testing, code reviews, and quality control for your IDE as you do for the aeroplane autopilot your are developing with it.

IDe no but the compilers yes. A company that develops a commercial compiler will usually have one process in place for all the project, compiler, linker, librarian, IDE etc. It does not make any sense to lower the standards for just one component.



The problem is that I have seen some absolutely appalling FOSS and in one case it was being actively promoted by the FOSS Devotees over the commercial SW simply because it was FOSS for all the usual reasons...

There are times when being open source is an absolute requirement,

Such as?
Do you mean FOSS or just having the source available? A lot of commercial software does make the source available under nda and licences. But it is not "Open Source"

and poor open source software is then infinitely better than wonderful closed source software.
Absolutely not.

Picking the best tool for the job means weighting your requirements and the available software's features -

Agreed.

if you need to have the source available and need to have a free license, then that's your choice for your requirements.

Yes. But as I keep on saying for a all the commercial SW I know where having the source is a requirement the source is available. It is just not available to publish openly.,


You get the source and can fix bugs, the other costs money etc It is that sort of religious bigotry that gets the FOSS crowd a bad name.


And this obsession with bad open source projects is just as much religious bigotry, and gives the anti-FOSS crowd a bad name.

On pure engineering grounds I thought the FOSS application unusable.
The other problem is the irrational hatred of any payware and the supposed incompetence of companies producing this "bug ridden" software. ... I can only assume the FOSS programmers don't actually work in the SW industry. Or are they suggesting that the FOSS they do in their spare time is of a higher standard than their paid work?


Please re-read your posts - your appear to have just as irrational a hatred and fear of FOSS as any FOSS fanatic has of closed source software.

Probalby because I am fed up with the complete irrational and religious arguments i see form the FOSS devotees.

There are poorly written open source projects out there - no one will deny it. But there are also plenty of exceptionally well written open source projects around,
Yes.

and there are plenty of absolutely appalling closed source programs available too.

Not that many as they just don't last commercially. And before you rant at windows it is not that bad in reality. I have had Open Office crash more often that MS office. And both have their problems.

Windows failing is that it tries to do far to much and be all things to everyone.

That's the reality of the software world - just as you can write good and bad programs in any programming language, you can do it with any license and any software development model. If you think that all FOSS is produced by people in their spare time, and is of necessity of a lower standard than closed source software, then you've swallowed the FUD from the likes of MS with an apparently total lack of thought.

No I don't believe that any more than I believe that that is lots of bad commercial Sw out there. There used to be going back 20 years but as I keep saying bad commercial Sw does not last. (BTW Windows is not that bad none of my 5 PC systems crash any more than the Mac or Solaris ones.)

Incidentally I have just had a case where having free source code cost the company a fortune. They fixed the bugs themselves and the project manager calculated he could have bought a commercial product (with source) for half the amount the FOSS has cost them in Time/Money the result is still less stable and they are now some weeks behind.

So having the source is not always a good thing. Neither it being able to fix the bugs in it.

As for FOSS being lower quality, some is some is not. A lot is written in peoples spare time but the FOSS devotees keep coming out with a blanket assertion that commercial SW is bug ridden.... Perhaps that is just a reflection of their normal working practices in their day jobs?

I have seen assertions here regarding a particular commercial compiler.... It passes all the usual compiler tests and some of the components are used in several very high end compilers. Yet still I see the blanket condemnation because it is "megabucks" and not FOSS



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Eiffel just needs a good open source compiler".
    ... libraries and a good environment. ... seldom a goal for FOSS systems. ... a number of LISP variants quite nicely. ... not a compiler. ...
    (comp.lang.eiffel)
  • Re: A good compiler
    ... There are many FOSS Detotees on here who push FOSS without declaring ... Neither do I have a "religious" interest in any compiler. ... have used, and enjoyed using, gcc, Visual C, Borland C, ...
    (comp.lang.c)