Quote:
Originally Posted by Logseman
Cars include some changes in their insides. However, the important thing for producers is what is marketable (better graphic power or cool controllers in games, and new designs in cars). Open source has less power to be marketed.
|
The most important thing for open-source software developers is that it is good, so over time good features tend to added if they are appropriate (as opposed to popular features getting added in every new version as a marketing point regardless of whether they improve the product or not). Tom Nadea had this to say regarding the differences between the proprietary software development of Windows to the open-source development of Linux distributions:
Quote:
|
The difference here is, in every release cycle Microsoft always listens to its most ignorant customers. This is the key to dumbing down each release cycle of software for further assaulting the non-PC population. Linux and OS/2 developers, OTOH, tend to listen to their smartest customers. This necessarily limits the initial appeal of the operating system, while enhancing its long-term benefits. Perhaps only a monopolist like Microsoft could get away with selling worse products each generation -- products focused so narrowly on the least-technical member of the consumer base that they necessarily sacrifice technical excellence. Linux and OS/2 tend to appeal to the customer who knows greatness when he or she sees it.
|