Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"Riding iOS and Android To Power It's Comeback" (Score 1) 120

I read that as "How Blackberry is struggling to stay relevant after people stopped using the devices on which their services are used"

I agree with you here - they are trying to remain relevant by become an ecosystem, not a device vendor. If they can build a strong enough enterprise solution that runs on a number of devices, besides their own, they can offer companies a total solution w/o locking them in to a specific brand of hardware; and offer a total package for companies that want one standard device. I doubt they can stay viable as a hardware unique solution simply because that mens tehy must innovate in hardware as well as software, and they've had a hard time doing that.

And, honestly, I question whether or not Blackberry's services are strong enough to stand on their own any more. There have been a number of "good enough" alternatives that have popped up in the last few years, either from first-party or third-party developers on the competing platforms.

The ultimate question is 'good enough" enough to overcome their advantages of scope and size in the enterprise market? Personally, I think they will rollout this new model, do reasonably well, and get bought either by MS or a big enterprise software company. I doubt Apple would buy them because it would mean redoing teh software to match Apple's POV and it would simply be easier to partner and build BES support and security services into their existing iOS.

Comment: Re:it contradicts the definition (Score 1) 209

Even then not a reasonable comparison. The ability for the scanned proprietary softwares' teams to decide on inclusion feels to me like it would really influence the stats.

Would you expect there to exist any correlation between how shoddy software is and how likely the authors are to share information about how shoddy their software is? I would expect some correlation.

Let's accept the premise that proprietary vendors only submitted what they considered their best code. If the code bases tested matched similar function OSS codebases, then it is a valid comparison of similar types of software.

I don't see how you're answering the grandparent's concern here. Are you assuming that the code quality is only a function of the function of the code? Otherwise, why would an OSS project in category X be better than average just because a better-than-average proprietary X was submitted?

No, I am saying it would be a valid comparison between OSS and proprietary code if programs that perform the same function were tested in each category. OSS quality has no impact on proprietary quality, and vice versa; but if you compare OSS and proprietary web browsers tehn it would be a reasonable comparison of teh quality of each vs the other.

Let's make this a bit more concrete: Imagine that the defect density of proprietary projects is normal-distributed with a mean of 0.6 and a standard deviation of 0.1. Then you would expect the defect density to vary between less than 0.5 and more than 0.7, with 68% lying between those numbers. If high quality projects are preferentially submitted for review, then the mean of that subset will obviously be lower than 0.6. Let's say that the projects that were sent in were a web browser (0.55), a pdf reader (0.49) and a video player (0.50). You're saying that it would be fair if we compared this with open source web browsers, pdf readers and video players. But just as these categories happened to fluctuate low in error density in the proprietary side, these categories may just as well happen to have atypically high error rates on the OSS side. In fact, unless the quality of the project is strongly correlated with the category it is in, then you would expect the mean on the OSS web browsers, pdf readers and video players to be the same as the total mean, since *they were not selected based on their own quality*, unlike the proprietary software.

The problem is you are assuming they all have a normal distribution. While that may be true for a large data set (in fact the central limit theorem would say so); we don't know what the distribution is for individual categories. While we don't know what exactly made the data set we do know teh results for various sizes of code. It seems a reasonable assumption that similar types of programs would have similar size code bases so you don't have really good small proprietary programs skewing results for really large ones or vice versa; and similarly for OSS code.

Your argument about comparisons of similar types of software would only make sense if there were only one proprietary program of the type in question, and that is the one that was submitted for testing. Otherwise, you would expect to be comparing a better-than-average properietary foo with an average OSS foo.

Not really; especially a the high end where there are relatively few products in each category. There aren't that many commercial choices in many of the categories; and also relatively few OSS as well. As a result it is less likely all the bad ones got left out, if they were you wouldn't have much of a data set. So, assuming they had similar software in each category the comparison drawn would be valid. Could we say any one program is equal to another? No, but we could say that for large programs OSS software is as bug free as proprietary; and vice versa.

I think the grandparent is completely correct that there is a potential bias here. But I have no idea how large it is.

I am not saying there is no bias and without seeing specifically what comprised the test data we don't know what and how big any bias is. I take issue with comments that the results are invalid because people assume all OSS was tested but proprietary was cherry picked. They don't like the results so the immediate reaction is to claim they are false. My contention is it is a reasonable comparison, especially for large programs, because the number of different programs that perform similar functions, in that category is small enough that if both data sets are reasonably large any selection bias is likely to have a small impact on the final numbers. I think for other size code base, if they have a similar mix of functionality, it would be reasonable as well though there may be more variability in results if you changed the actual programs tested. In the end, that is why I think you really need a list of what is in the results to reach a more definitive conclusion.

Comment: Re:it contradicts the definition (Score 2) 209

Even then not a reasonable comparison. The ability for the scanned proprietary softwares' teams to decide on inclusion feels to me like it would really influence the stats.

Would you expect there to exist any correlation between how shoddy software is and how likely the authors are to share information about how shoddy their software is? I would expect some correlation.

Let's accept the premise that proprietary vendors only submitted what they considered their best code. If the code bases tested matched similar function OSS codebases, then it is a valid comparison of similar types of software. It would say that OSS and proprietary software; of similar functionality, has similar defect rates (for certain size code bases). As with any study, the results should be taken with a grain of salt until you see the underlying methodology and data. That, of course, will not stop people form trumpeting the results as proof *their* OSS project is as good as proprietary in terms of errors, even though such a conclusion is not valid; but it does give people some assurance that OSS code, in general, is as reasonably good as its proprietary equivalent. It would be interesting to see exactly what was included in each data sets and such information would help shed light on the conclusions. In addition, depending on what OSS software was included, you could make a case that much shoddy OSS software was left out depending on what was included in the sample; which is why I conclude that as long as similar types of programs were tested it is a valid comparison.

Comment: Re:it contradicts the definition (Score 2) 209

We use coverity where I work on proprietary code and part of their service is to report, anonymously obviously, the defect count, type and lines of code etc back to coverity IF YOU WANT TO.

Am I detecting a selection bias here? Coverity can run their tests against all of open source. Coverity can run their tests only against that proprietary code that decides to use it and report the results--and it strikes me that only the better, and more open, proprietary shops would be doing this. Is Mircrosoft reporting their code? I doubt it. Is Oracle?

I doubt they ran it against all open source software; just some subset that ideally mirrored the proprietary code in complexity and application. If so it would be a reasonable comparison. Since TFA says they used some 300 OSS programs of various sizes I'd say it was a reasonable approximation of real world defect rates. Since the TFA doesn't name any proprietary products included in the survey it is harder to decide if they are valid results but I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

Comment: Re:and all the children are above average (Score 1) 209

"Code quality for open source software continues to mirror that of proprietary software — and both continue to surpass the industry standard for software quality."

What is this third kind of software that is neither open source nor proprietary which is bringing down the average industry standard for software quality? Because if there is only open source and proprietary then they can't both be better than average. Or perhaps the programmers are from Lake Wobegon?

I had the same reaction, right down to the Lake Wobegon reference. Perhaps they are differentiating between software offered for sale versus tools internal to a business? To some extent that would also explain the difference in quality - cost to fix is much higher if you have shipped thousands of copies, versus telling the one consumer of a report in finance to ignore the one number that is wrong.

An industry standard has nothing to do with actual practice. It is not an average. All it says is it is an acceptable error rate is x.

Comment: Re:I tried this... (Score 1) 657

by Registered Coward v2 (#43646795) Attached to: Adobe Creative Suite Going Subscription-Only

Maybe those creative professionals should contribute to the development of gimp by coding and contributing the features that they want? Every feature gimp has is a feature that someone decided they wanted and then wrote and shared. That is how it works. The graphic designers are just to lazy to do it themselves, instead they demand that you do it for them for free.

No, they're simply saying this doesn't meet my needs so I picked a different solution. They don't care about FOSS, they want a solution that works well for them. If FOSS is truly to go mainstream it needs to move beyond the "if you want it code it yourself" mentality. That's fine for hobbyist pursuits, but won't lead to broader success.

Comment: Re:Piracy (Score 3, Insightful) 657

by Registered Coward v2 (#43646723) Attached to: Adobe Creative Suite Going Subscription-Only

Adobe underestimates how much it benefits from piracy. If poor college students can't cut their teeth on the full Adobe suite, they're likely to learn how to use something else. When those students go out and get jobs, they're more likely to use what they're used to than drop a bundle on Adobe software they've never used before.

Guess what? They'll give it college students for free, or real cheap and then when they pull the plug after 4 years they have a new paying user. Piracy, who needs it when you can hook them and then withdraw the drug until they pay?

Comment: Re:Purpose and character (Score 1) 210

True, but fair use does not require any use not make money for the person claiming fair use; for example you can use a clip in a critique of the that is published in a for profit magazine.

While for-profit ventures can have fair-use content in their products, the fact that money is made off of the product (or that it is used by a non-profit entity like the Free Software Foundation) can be a contributing factor for determining if the infringement is in fact fair use or a copyright violation.

Keep in mind that fair-use is a legal defense against a claim of copyright infringement. You are still technically infringing on copyright even with fair-use content, just that such infringement is "legal" in those countries which recognize fair-use or related concepts like fair-dealing. In America, fair-use is considered the aspect of copyright law which recognizes the 1st amendment issues that modify a grant of copyright, and has subsequently been codified with specific fair-use exceptions. In other words, there are some forms of expression that simply must permit at least some minor copyright infringement simply to be able to express yourself and ideas in society... and a full restriction on copyrighted content would prohibit many forms of speech or expression that shouldn't be restricted.

True, but fair use, in US Law, is defines as a non-infringing use; which makes it an affirmative defense against a claim of copyright infringement. The right to control certain types of uses is not granted copyright owners so fair use is not a case of "you infringed but that is ok;" because teh law says anyone can use your material for these purposes and not violate your copyright.

Comment: Re:Purpose and character (Score 1, Insightful) 210

they were actually making money off of someone else work without compensation.

Which is irrelevant in determining fair use.

How so? The first factor in a fair use determination under U.S. law (17 USC 107) involves whether or not the "purpose and character" was commercial.

True, but fair use does not require any use not make money for the person claiming fair use; for example you can use a clip in a critique of the that is published in a for profit magazine.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 318

by Registered Coward v2 (#43615823) Attached to: Repeal of Louisiana Science Education Act Rejected

because this law is nothing more than government forcing christianity into schools. We don't stop that because that's what people want. just try to get Islamic creationism in schools. fat chance.

Actually, that is what it would take - or perhaps Von Danikin's idea of ancient astronauts? There's enough pseudo - science in there to qualify under teh "bones in teh dust" standard for opening eyes to alternate ideas. Of course, the law would be repealed immediately.

Comment: Re:Equal rights (Score 1) 832

by Registered Coward v2 (#43614287) Attached to: So What If Yahoo's New Dads Get Less Leave Than Moms?

Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.

Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.

This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.

Except of course, one economic explanation why men tend to get paid more is they do not take maternity leave so they work more; the problem is pay scales are based on the group view of work rather than individual. If Yahoo gives one more than another salary ranges should be comparable as well. If they already are than I would say men may have a discrimination case.

Comment: Re:OMG! we can't have that! (Score 2) 215

by Registered Coward v2 (#43610793) Attached to: Alaskan Middle Schoolers Phish Their Teachers

logic and reasoning in a schoolhouse, what ever is this nation coming to? this must be stopped!

Unfortunately, in a mad rush to show "we are serious about ..." school boards and administrators pass zero tolerance policies. As a result the stupid as well as they criminal get punished equally. Schools cannot apply common sense, as much as they may want to, because of the rules. Everyone gets all bothered by draconian punishment for a minor infraction but are unwilling to change rules because they don't want to be held accountable for making a decision that someone will second guess. That is not limited to schools, many lawmakers seem to share the same viewpoint (and then get all upset when something h clearly ridiculous happens as a result of a zero tolerence law THEY PASSED.)

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 1) 381

I'm as big a fan of the iPhone as anyone, but the tools you mention don't work for BYOD. They're great for company owned and managed devices. But it's not "Your Own Device" if you're letting someone else control it with those profiles or activesync connections. If I've paid for hardware with my own money, it's mine... period, full stop. No one else gets admin, root, remote-wipe, find my iPhone, or whatever privileges but me.

Then you don't get access to their network with your device. I have a client that requires I allow remote wipe in exchange for Exchange Server access. For me, the ability to get emails anywhere anytime outweighs any concerns I have about giving them access.

Another issue, however, is labor and other law. What happens if you require employees to allow access and then expect them to work after hours? Are they entitled to overtime? Are you liable if they have an accident while answering an email? What happens if proprietary or private data gets leaked before you wipe? Who gets fined? While I can see the advantges of having one phone and getting reimbursed for its use, a company needs to look past the cost savings and assess the risk, financial and otherwise, before making this leap. While they may have gigabytes of procedures they put the onus on the employee in an attempt to avoid liability, they generally are the deep pockets with the most to lose.

Would it help if I got out and pushed? -- Princess Leia Organa

Working...