Re: Ada open source

Re: Ada open source

[Hyman Rosen]

Andrew Carroll wrote:
> "...There's some guy out there using ___ who wants to use something
> else, but can't because he needs one tiny feature that nothing else has.
> This is a major weakness of Open Source because since software is under
> constant development and bug fixing and security hole patching is
> priority, few programs ever become feature complete..."
> 
> What do you all think of that statement?

It's Open Source. If he needs a tiny feature added to something in
order to be able to use it, then he should add it himself, and make
it available to the project. Or he can pay someone to have it done.

Except for the added ability to do something about it himself, I
don't see how this situation is different from his wanting to use a
non-open source product that lacks his vital feature.

And I'm not aware of many products that declare themselves feature-
complete and stop, and certainly not from commercial vendors.

How does this pertain to Ada, anyway?

Ada open source

[Andrew Carroll]

A quote from slashdot:

"...There's some guy out there using ___ who wants to use something
else, but can't because he needs one tiny feature that nothing else has.
This is a major weakness of Open Source because since software is under
constant development and bug fixing and security hole patching is
priority, few programs ever become feature complete..."

What do you all think of that statement?

Andrew Carroll
Carroll-Tech
720-273-6814
andrew@carroll-tech.net

Re: Ada open source

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1087312556.728924@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> How does this pertain to Ada, anyway?

Because one of the biggest player in the Ada market, GNAT, is open source.

Re: Ada open source

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <mailman.111.1087311542.391.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>, "Andrew Carroll" <andrew@carroll-tech.net> writes:
> A quote from slashdot:
> 
> "...There's some guy out there using ___ who wants to use something
> else, but can't because he needs one tiny feature that nothing else has.
> This is a major weakness of Open Source because since software is under
> constant development and bug fixing and security hole patching is
> priority, few programs ever become feature complete..."
> 
> What do you all think of that statement?

"Feature complete" is based on the project plan for a particular release.
Chasing features without a project plan, or being unwilling to withhold
features once they have been originally scheduled, leads to defects,
sometimes euphemistically described as "bugs".

Re: Ada open source

[Hyman Rosen]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> Because one of the biggest player in the Ada market, GNAT, is open source.

For being Free Software, GNAT is one of the most commercial-style
products around. I'm pretty sure that people with ACT support
contracts get tiny but vital features added on request all the
time. I don't think GNAT is much of a target for security hackers
either.

Re: Ada open source

[Steve]

Please cite a piece of closed source software that is "feature complete" and
bug free.

The difference with open source, is you have some hope of fixing the bugs
yourself.

Steve
(The Duck)

"Andrew Carroll" <andrew@carroll-tech.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.111.1087311542.391.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> A quote from slashdot:
>
> "...There's some guy out there using ___ who wants to use something
> else, but can't because he needs one tiny feature that nothing else has.
> This is a major weakness of Open Source because since software is under
> constant development and bug fixing and security hole patching is
> priority, few programs ever become feature complete..."
>
> What do you all think of that statement?
>
> Andrew Carroll
> Carroll-Tech
> 720-273-6814
> andrew@carroll-tech.net
>
>
>

Re: Ada open source

[Brian May]

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve  <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> writes:

    Steve> Please cite a piece of closed source software that is
    Steve> "feature complete" and bug free.

First step: define "feature complete"!

There always seems to be room for adding new features. Even the
traditional "hello world" program is not immune. Check out the feature
rich "hello world" program available at:
<URL:ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/hello/hello-2.1.1.tar.gz> for instance.
There appear to be three versions of this in Debian.

What is more important is: "does it meet my requirements?" rather then
"does it have all possible features including the ability to make a
cup of coffee". I don't think it is possible to write software that
will meet everyone's requirements.

When you do find such software, no doubt it will be so bloated with
features 99% people don't use that it will be unusable for 99% people
;-).

Getting back to the original post. I would speculate the posting was
written by a user rather then a programmer, hence the significance of
having source code available may not be obvious.

The way I read it: closed source is better then open source because
open source authors concentrate more on major development, bug fixes
and security fixes rather then adding small features. If so, aren't
these all reasons why (a) open source is better, because the authors
want to get the program "correct" before adding endless numbers of
small features and (b) using Ada might save time with bug fixes and
security fixes?

I would suggest that the problem with closed-source packages is that,
in a number of cases, the author gives the users what they want,
without designing it correctly, without testing it correctly, without
securing it correctly, etc, and as users cannot see the source code
they don't know what the quality of the coding is like.

Another issue with closed-source packages I have encountered from time
to time occurs if the author abandons the product; it is no longer
possible to legally obtain it, no longer possible to get even the
simplest bugs fixed, etc. Replacing the software may require replacing
hardware, even though the current system generally works fine.
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

Re: Ada open source

[Simon Wright]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> > Because one of the biggest player in the Ada market, GNAT, is open source.
> 
> For being Free Software, GNAT is one of the most commercial-style
> products around. I'm pretty sure that people with ACT support
> contracts get tiny but vital features added on request all the
> time. I don't think GNAT is much of a target for security hackers
> either.

If ACT think a suggestion is cool it gets put on the list. No doubt
you can pay extra to have other, less cool, things done for you!

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.

Re: Ada open source

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Brian May wrote:
>>>>>>"Steve" == Steve  <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> writes:
>     Steve> Please cite a piece of closed source software that is
>     Steve> "feature complete" and bug free.
...
> The way I read it: closed source is better then open source because
> open source authors concentrate more on major development, bug fixes
> and security fixes rather then adding small features. If so, aren't

A big problem in many discussions of this type is
this concept of "better".

It's like friends/family of IT people that ask the
ever annoying question:

    "What is the best PC that I can buy?"

The answer of course is that "It depends!"

I can think of many factors in favour of open sourced projects,
and perhaps a few things in favour of shrink wrap.
I could add what I like, you can state yours, but
in the end, I don't think anyone here is going
to have the all definitive answer. 8)
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Ada open source

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <b1EBc.4791$Nz.488142@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes:

> It's like friends/family of IT people that ask the
> ever annoying question:
> 
>     "What is the best PC that I can buy?"
> 
> The answer of course is that "It depends!"

My answer is always "Macintosh", but lately I have come to cherish
those friends and relatives who choose Microsoft because they know
they cannot contact me for support issues.