After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <H1tfl.73704$1k1.65406@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Matt <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> quoted Ars Technica:
>>
>> > "It's intuitively obvious open source is more cost effective and productive
>> > than proprietary software," McNealy told the BBC on Wednesday. "Open source
>
> I'd like to see what open source software McNealy thinks is more cost
> effective and productive than, for example:
>
> Final Cut Pro
> Premier Pro
> Mathematica
> Maple
> Logic Studio
> Pro Tools
> AutoCAD
I'd like to see what commercial software Tim Smith thinks is more cost
effective and productive than:
Open Office
Apache
Linux kernel 2.6
KDE desktop
Nautilus
GNU tools
Amarok and kin
Subversion, Mercurial, and Bazaar-ng
Blender
> The above beat the open source alternatives on productivity. For the
> case of professional users, the above will usually win on cost
> effectiveness, too. The higher productivity of the professional
> software will overcome the initial up front cost of the program and the
> cost of upgrades.
What crap. Compare the products one-at-a-time. Don't lump them into a
fictitious category.
--
QOTD:
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.
|
|
