First I just want to state that I don't think that one is better than the other and I don't think that you can only use one tool for the job, each tool has its purpose.
So I think it would make more sense for developers of all types to stop hating on each other specifically because of the choice of language or which suite of framework they subscribe to. Here are the differences I have seen so far.
Open Source
Open source software and development tools are fantastic! I use quite a few of them and I feel guilty when I don't make a donation to the people who develop the software for free. I would like to name a few:
Notepad++
Pidgin
Gordian Knot
Rip-it-for-me
DVD-Decrypter
Winamp (free to use, not open source)
Micro Torrent
TFS Sidekick's
Redgate's .net Decompiler
Pheonix labs protection thingy
Apache Web Server
That is a lot of free software that I either use or used to use. The point is someone or a group of people put a lot of hard work into a product that no one really pays for except makes a donation every now and again. The main benefit being that it is free to use and doesn't have a lot of strings attached to it. The downside though is it is free and if there is a bug of some kind, there is no guarantee that there will be a fix in place or any kind of support.
There are the various free languages and frameworks:
Python
Java and everything else that was formerly sun's
Ruby and Ruby on Rails
PHP
They have their benefits, I started with Java and gradually switched to C#. I learned and did C programming too.
Open source coding is great for learning, for businesses (not all) that have flexibility, for people who cannot afford the expensive licenses that Microsoft offers etc... Open source lets the community decide the direction to take a project into and it isn't about money. Open source is nice because there are a bunch of people out there that put a lot of time and effort into a free product for you to use, or give you tools to use to make your life easier.
Closed Source
I would like start off by saying, I think using closed source or pay for software and tools is more for people and businesses that need more of a guarantee, almost no open ends in order to get support and features. In open source, there is no complaining, just like there is no crying in baseball. Not to say that people don't complain, they do, its just that they are generally ignored or told to STFU and RTFM. In open source if there is a bug or something is missing, you have several options:
too bad just deal with it
fix it yourself,
report it appropriately, no demands
move to a closed source product or platform
So that last option is why there is a closed source option to begin with. I as a paying customer complain and demand a solution. I prefer Microsoft products because of the flow and integration of all the products. I could list all of them, but there is no reason to, I will mention them as I go. I like C# because it is a strongly typed language and it is easier to deal with than Java in every sense. Java is messy and you have to write too much code to do too little (but hey its free!). I like SQL Server because it is way more developed and easier to use than mySQL. MySQL still has a lot of bugs and very faulty lax syntax and query structure issues (but hey its free!). Lets be frank, open office pails in comparison with MS Office, but hey its free! You see the trend I am going with here. Regular bug fixes and updates for the pay for stuff.
But Microsoft just takes the open source ideas and manufactures them!
Yes. Yes they do and guess what, it doesn't matter because they are just using free concepts developed by the Open Source community and redeveloping them and repackaging them into MS products. In other words it is legal and they aren't breaking any rules. In some respects they even make their versions of the "stolen" products better than the original.
I am a MS whore, I admit it, and the reason is simple, it is the same reason I prefer a windows machine to anything else. I don't need to fuss with the system too much and it just fucking works. Some of you are now thinking, but you can use a Linux box or an apple cause it has a good UI and shell access. To which I will respond, no. I don't want the inconvenience that Linux has to offer and I wouldn't pay that much money for a throw away piece of equipment, aka Macs. Linux is inconvenient because it doesn't work half the time and I have to do too much to use it. Macs are inconvenient because they have the same issues as Linux/Unix and fuck apple. The irony in all of that is most of you use windows emulators anyhow, so STFU.
No comments:
Post a Comment