What are you trying to say?

>>19796706
ESR

>>19796693
>implying that 1 is preferable to 2.

I bet you have never set foot outside your mom's basement, let alone your country.

One is clean and orderly, the other gets shit done.

Makes sense.

Fuck ESR. At least douches like RMS, Keith Packard, and Theo de Raddt actually program.

>>19796706
That closed source is more impressive and disciplined, but open source is more vibrant?

Open Source serves a multitude of everyday uses.

Closed Source serves one specific purpose.

>>19796719
cathedral vs bazaar isn't open source vs closed source

>>19796733
Doesn't leaving the country imply leaving the basement?

I fucking love open markets like the right side of the picture, find anything you want for dirt cheep, the vendors are regular people like me, nobody judges you, and you directly help out the regular people when you buy from them

>>19796774
But leaving your basement, doesn't mean imply leaving your country.

>>19796762

Er, yes it is.

>>19796762
This.

None of you faggots have ever even read CatB, so stop pretending.

>>19796693
With closed source,you have a whole building,and no food.you are fucked.
With open source,you at least get something to ssay

>>19796760

>cathedral
>purpose

OH YOU

Cathedral and bazaar are both open source way of developing software go back to pray for steve jobs Op.

>>19796760
Wrong again. With respect to OPs picture, the church is something that you have no control over, either join them and pay money, or leave them and be hated by them.

The marketplace is open, you can do what ever you want, and it operates on free market principles.

>>19796790
Obviously. I was pointing out the ordering was wrong. Shouldn't it be you haven't left the country, let alone mom's basement, not the other way around?

>>19796792
GCC is cathedral
Linux is Bazaar.

>>19796792
Er, no it isn't, er, er.

Right from the fucking intro on Wikipedia (which is usually a shit source, but probably about the level you can understand)

>The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers. GNU Emacs and GCC are presented as examples.
>The Bazaar model, in which the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as the inventor of this process. Raymond also provides anecdotal accounts of his own implementation of this model for the Fetchmail project.

>The Cathedral model
>GNU Emacs and GCC

>>19796826
No, I don't think that's how it works.

>>19796844

>Wikipedia
>shit source
>full of citations and references on every article

Wikipedia is perceived to be a shit source, but it's often extremely high quality due to the number of people correcting errors and fuckabouts.

>>19796891
>it's often extremely high quality due to the number of people correcting errors and fuckabouts.

That used to be true. These days the Wikipedia clique ensure that only The Anointed Holy Editors can edit anything (try it: create a new account and make a simple edit to a subject you're knowledgeable on. Watch it get insta-reverted by some basement dwelling editor).

Not to mention all the weasel-words ("It is believed...", "Some argue..."). Articles get rapidly worse if it's a slightly contentious or difficult to prove subject (I.e. an historical figure who we don't know much about).

why do people pretend to have read CATB? fucking scenewhores ruining my community

Let me guess:

The cathedral and the bazaar.

Looks like you missed the point of the book, OP.

>>19796948

It's like an hour long, don't think it's some sort of arcane document.

Besides which, most of it is talking about his shitty fetchmail.

>>19796984
>It's like an hour long, don't think it's some sort of arcane document.

Yet there are a lot of people in this thread who seem to think the Cathedral model means "Closed source". It's almost as if they...haven't read it.

>>19796984
esr is a fag anyway.

>>19796984
>most of it is talking about his shitty fetchmail.
This.
>>19797001
Most haven't, they just read a few lines on Wikipedia.

>>19797001
Or even read the Wikipedia article for that matter.

>>19796937
So closed source is a log of shit and open source is a truckload of gooey shit?

>>19796940
I, on the other hand, have found Wikipedia to be extremely awesome for exactly that. History, Geography and Politics. Stuff that I have no interest in, but still need to have some information about.

Also, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux
It's a very good article.

>>19797021

One is a big turd made by one entity.

The other is a load of turds made by many entities.

>>19797021
open source knows how to deal with shit
closed source just leaves you with shit all over your hands

>>19796940

True to a point, but it's still the best encyclopaedia in existence. It's vetted a lot better than a lot of traditional sources too.

>>19797034


>The other is a load of turds made by many entities.

See: Linux Distros

>>19796733
My basement is in several countries. Check and mate

>>19797054
or any single open-source program that is sufficiently popuular

>>19797062

You live in CERN?

>>19797023
That's fine if you just treat Wikipedia as a form of light entertainment, but it doesn't make it a reliable source for anything important.

>>19797096

I'd like to see what you can a 'reliable' source.

HRUF DURF ITS On THE INTERnET PEOPLE MAKE thingS UP

>>19797096
>
>That's fine if you just treat Wikipedia as a form of light entertainment, but it doesn't make it a reliable source for anything important.

If you want to start researching on a new subject, go to wikipedia read the article and then start reading the sources.

>>19797096

It's an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A SOURCE.

YOURE A FUCKING IDIOT.

>>19797113
>>19797122
>>19797136
Except you CAN'T TRUST THE SOURCES PROVIDED ARE NOT HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS THE EDITORS OWN PERSONAL OUTLOOK, MAKING IT UTTERLY USELESS.

CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.

>>19797155

Isn't that true for any publication since the dawn of time?

>>19797155
That's like saying you can't trust a peer reviewed study because "it might be heavily biased toward the lead researcher".

You might as well just say that all sources are worthless and then herpderp about conspiracies.

>>19797155
How is that different from any encyclopedia?

At least with wikipedia, you have a large number of editors looking at it. It's as biased as the population as a whole (give or take vocal minorities).

>>19797165
Yes, except back in the day people had to do their own research, usually at a library, and would find primary sources from multiple secondary sources.

These days everyone just goes HERP DERP PIKIWEDIA! and starts clicking on the pretty links at the bottom of the article and think they're "Doing research" because "It's the primary source, herp derp!"