卫报：开源是一个回归说杰克斯科菲尔德 [英] Guardian: open source is a throwback says Jack Schofield
问题描述
为什么你不能无所事事
Jack Schofield 2004年1月22日
[...]
运行开源软件也有无可置疑的好处，
虽然金融软件可能很小甚至是负数。公司很有可能被一无所获的想法诱惑。
自行修复bug并修改程序的工具也听起来很有吸引力。但是，修复bug对大多数公司来说都不实用，
和修改可能是非常危险的。
如果你真的要做这些事情，你需要聘请几个具有内核级技能的可靠程序员
确实，商业计算的整体进展来自
昂贵的手写，错误缠身，公司特定的程序，以便更便宜但功能更强大的现成套餐。从这一点来看，开源是一种回归。
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/sto...127802,00.html
Why you can''t get something for nothing
Jack Schofield Jan 22 2004
[..]
"There are also undoubted benefits from running open source software,
though the financial ones can be small or even negative. Companies are
bound to be tempted by the idea of getting something for nothing .."
"The facility to fix bugs yourself and to modify programs also sounds
attractive. However, fixing bugs is not practical for most companies,
and modifications can be positively dangerous.
If you are really going to do these things, you need to hire several
reliable programmers with kernel-level skills"
"Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been from
expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific programs to
cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of
view, open source is a throwback."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/sto...127802,00.html
推荐答案
杰克·斯科菲尔德是一位自以为是的傻瓜，他传播Holloween FUD。
守护者的记者是通常比那更好。
Best，
$ b $bMiklós
" malcolm" <毫安********* @ lycos.com>在消息中写道
news：64 ************************** @ posting.google.c om ...
Jack Schofield is an opinionated jackass who spreads Holloween FUD.
Guardian''s journalists are usually better than that.
Best,
Miklós
"malcolm" <ma*********@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:64**************************@posting.google.c om...
为什么你不能得到一些东西
Jack Schofield 2004年1月22日
更便宜但功能更强大的现成包装。从这个角度来看，开源是一种回归。
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/sto...127802,00.html
Why you can''t get something for nothing
Jack Schofield Jan 22 2004
cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf packages. From that point of view, open source is a throwback."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/sto...127802,00.html
malcolmny>为什么你什么都买不到
malcolmny> Jack Schofield 2004年1月22日
...
malcolmny>如果你真的要做这些事情，你需要雇佣
malcolmny>几个具有内核级技能的可靠程序员
当然，只有当你的公司想完全单独使用时才需要这样做。
。 Linux是开源这一事实并不意味着你不能代表
找到几个可靠的程序员，具有内核级别的技能和b $ b技能。像Red Hat这样的Linux供应商。
malcolmny> 事实上，商业计算的整个进步已经是好的，而且是b $ malcolmny>来自昂贵的手写，错误，公司特定的
malcolmny>程序更便宜但更强大的现成
malcolmny>包。从这个角度来看，开源是一个
malcolmny>返回。
我在这里看不到作者的逻辑。他认为以何种方式打开
源软件不能被视为更便宜但更强大的现成的
软件？它不仅仅是供应商的专有货架。
Jack Schofield是否可以为SCO工作？ < wink>
Skip
malcolmny> Why you can''t get something for nothing
malcolmny> Jack Schofield Jan 22 2004
...
malcolmny> If you are really going to do these things, you need to hire
malcolmny> several reliable programmers with kernel-level skills"
Of course, this is only necessary if your company wants to go it completely
alone. The fact that Linux is Open Source doesn''t mean you can''t delegate
the function of finding "several reliable programmers with kernel-level
skills" to Linux vendors like Red Hat.
malcolmny> "Indeed, the whole progress of commercial computing has been
malcolmny> from expensive hand-written, bug-ridden, company-specific
malcolmny> programs to cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf
malcolmny> packages. From that point of view, open source is a
malcolmny> throwback."
I fail to see the author''s logic here. In what way does he think that Open
Source software can''t be treated as "cheaper but more powerful off-the-shelf
software"? It''s just not off a vendor''s proprietary shelf.
Does Jack Schofield perhaps work for SCO? <wink>
Skip
" Skip Montanaro" < SK ** @ pobox.com>在留言中写道
新闻：ma ************************************ ** @ pyth on.org ...
"Skip Montanaro" <sk**@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:ma**************************************@pyth on.org...
Jack Schofield是否可以为SCO工作？ < wink>
Skip
Does Jack Schofield perhaps work for SCO? <wink>
Skip
无论是微软还是微软。 ;-)或者他很愚蠢。
$ b $bMiklós
Either that or Microsoft. ;-) Or he''s plain stupid.
Miklós
这篇关于卫报：开源是一个回归说杰克斯科菲尔德的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
