Forums

About open source

Started by leilei March 6, 2012
Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable.
Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most
of them are hard to solve.
Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu,
suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition.


Do you have the same feeling?

why is this could happen?

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:30:21 -0800 (PST), leilei
<huxuelei630@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable. >Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most >of them are hard to solve. >Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, >suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. > >Do you have the same feeling?
Frequently.
>why is this could happen?
Most developers work on one platform preferentially and port their software to other platforms. The preferred platform then usually is the most stable and sometimes also is ahead on features. This lure of writing an application once and then running it anywhere is why people are so attracted to managed VM platforms like JVM and CLR (.NET's virtual machine). Currently it only works well for certain kinds of applications (though the list is growing constantly). George
It's the hidden cost of "free"

JJS

"leilei"  wrote in message 
news:159f1c5d-5701-4b15-84a7-f9664a38a4f5@x5g2000pbl.googlegroups.com...

Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable.
Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most
of them are hard to solve.
Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu,
suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition.


Do you have the same feeling?

why is this could happen? 

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:30:21 -0800, leilei wrote:

> Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable. > Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most of > them are hard to solve. > Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, > suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. > > > Do you have the same feeling? > > why is this could happen?
I've felt that the total number of bugs are about the same, just distributed differently. Certainly the amount of time I spend screaming at my (Linux) computer seems to be the same or less than the amount of time that my wife spends screaming at her (Windows) machine. And when I need help, I get sympathy from individuals, instead of getting sneered at by a corporation. (Well, usually -- sometimes with open- source one gets sneered at by individuals, but that's getting more and more rare). -- My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software http://www.wescottdesign.com
On 3/6/2012 4:30 PM, leilei wrote:
> Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable.
It very much depends on the 'open source software' you are talking about. I feel much more free to move in an 'open source' environment rather than in a closed one. And if your environment is 'sparsed' on a network of computers than a GNU/Linux system has unlimited capabilities compared to a Windows based one. I used to be a relatively active Windows user, since when I had to switch to a GNU/Linux system. Nowadays I go back only to read and edit M.Office products (.docx and similar) and I must say that I hate that.
> Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most > of them are hard to solve.
YMMV. Hard to solve is either because the problems are very new, or because you are alone on this planet trying to do a - very - specific task. My software survived 15 years of kernel development and distribution nuances with very little change.
> Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, > suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. >
Here I have two questions: 1. Why would you need Eclipse on GNU/Linux if you have it running ok on Windows? 2. Why would you need Eclipse? IMO stick with the configuration that you feel more comfortable with to get the job done. If you don't want to get the job done but you feel intrigued with what goes on 'behind the scenes' than switch to the system that allows you to do so. My personal take on Eclipse on all those IDEs out there which are 'sold' as the programmer's cockpit, they are just toys which leave a void in the programmer's ability to control the process of building a program. A good text editor and 'make' utility is just too simple to be wrong.
> why is this could happen? >
How many times *per day* you have to use your 'task manager' on Windows? How many times on a GNU/Linux system? It is true that a straightforward comparison is hard to make but my Fedora Core 1 released in 2003 with Linux kernel 2.4.19 is still running fine and I can do everything I need on it.
On 03/06/2012 10:30 PM, leilei wrote:
> Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable. > Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most > of them are hard to solve. > Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, > suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. > > > Do you have the same feeling? > > why is this could happen? >
For me the opposite is true for the software I use. Granted, a lot of software regarding electronics (development kits etc.) requires old versions of Windows to function, but that attitude is slowly changing. The big difference is that bugs in the Linux operating system can be fixed, by you or someone else, because the source code is available, unlike Windows. In other words, you are welcome to contribute when using open source software, even if it just means reporting the problem by posting a bug report. Besides, I find problems a lot more fun to solve in Linux, while just being annoying in Windows. -- modrobert http://www.eurasia.nu/ "Stop thinking, and end your problems."
On 2012-03-06, leilei <huxuelei630@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable. > Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most > of them are hard to solve. > Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, > suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. > > > Do you have the same feeling? > > why is this could happen? >
Can you come up with some data, or at least some evidence that is a bit more concrete than feeling? I am unfamiliar with this type of benchmarking :-). -- weland@sdf.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org % grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines
Weland wrote:
> On 2012-03-06, leilei <huxuelei630@gmail.com> wrote: >>Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable. >>Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most >>of them are hard to solve. >>Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, >>suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. > > Can you come up with some data, or at least some evidence that is a bit more > concrete than feeling? I am unfamiliar with this type of benchmarking :-).
My data for that topic is that I've so far found around 15 (confirmed!) bugs in commercial compilers versus two in gcc. And I'm using gcc longer than commercial compilers for embedded targets. Does that say something about quality? Maybe. Does that help in the job? Probably not, as long as customers prefer products with glossy brochures and fancy certifications - no matter how ugly the code actually looks on the inside - over open source. "eek, from the internet? Can you give us a formal proof that it's correct? Will you be responsible for MISRA- certifying it?" That never seems to be an issue for commercial closed- source off-the-shelf products, which are excempt-by-price-tag. "It was expensive, it must be good." Rationale: use what works, sell what your client wants^Wneeds, and stay out of open-vs-closed-source flamewars. Helps your blood pressure as well. Stefan
On Mar 6, 12:11 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:30:21 -0800, leilei wrote: > > Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable. > > Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most of > > them are hard to solve. > > Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, > > suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. > > > Do you have the same feeling? > > > why is this could happen? > > I've felt that the total number of bugs are about the same, just > distributed differently. Certainly the amount of time I spend screaming > at my (Linux) computer seems to be the same or less than the amount of > time that my wife spends screaming at her (Windows) machine. > > And when I need help, I get sympathy from individuals, instead of getting > sneered at by a corporation. (Well, usually -- sometimes with open- > source one gets sneered at by individuals, but that's getting more and > more rare).
Yeah, right... I've been sneered at by far too many open source pin heads... But it only hurt because I needed them and they let me down... Oh, how they let me down... Nowdays I pick my FOSS based on the user community. Some are incredibly good! Rick
On 07/03/2012 18:24, Stefan Reuther wrote:
> Weland wrote: >> On 2012-03-06, leilei<huxuelei630@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi I have always feels that , the open source software more unstable. >>> Especially when I use Linux, there are always many problems, and most >>> of them are hard to solve. >>> Such as eclipse for linux, I have tried it on some linux, like ubuntu, >>> suse, I felt that , it's more unstable than windows edition. >> >> Can you come up with some data, or at least some evidence that is a bit more >> concrete than feeling? I am unfamiliar with this type of benchmarking :-). > > My data for that topic is that I've so far found around 15 (confirmed!) > bugs in commercial compilers versus two in gcc. And I'm using gcc longer > than commercial compilers for embedded targets. > > Does that say something about quality? Maybe. Does that help in the job? > Probably not, as long as customers prefer products with glossy brochures > and fancy certifications - no matter how ugly the code actually looks on > the inside - over open source. "eek, from the internet? Can you give us > a formal proof that it's correct? Will you be responsible for MISRA- > certifying it?" That never seems to be an issue for commercial closed- > source off-the-shelf products, which are excempt-by-price-tag. "It was > expensive, it must be good." >
There is also a third option - commercial open source. You get the quality and features of the open source software, but with the backing, support, testing and certification from a commercial company. For example, you can get embedded gcc toolchains from CodeSourcery - they do a more certification and qualification tests on their builds than many closed-source toolchain companies, and certainly far more than most users can do. And for your customers' peace of mind, there is the backing of a big name - Mentor Graphics. Obviously you pay a bit for this, though not as much as for other big toolchains. And you lose a little of the FOSS flexibility - if you want to include the very latest patches and rebuild the toolchain or libraries yourself, you lose the certifications. But it can be a good compromise.
> Rationale: use what works, sell what your client wants^Wneeds, and stay > out of open-vs-closed-source flamewars. Helps your blood pressure as well. > >