Open source means freedom from 'anti-features'

This was a good factual reporting news item. Until they threw in the mandatory, proprietary software supporting rag last paragraph.

After all, we wouldn't want any non thinking, ComputerWorld reader getting the idea that open software might be worth looking into.

Same old FUD regurgitated again.

It's the mark of bad journalism, which explains why we see it so often. In order to "balance" the article, the "journalist" feels obligated to say something bad about the subject, whether or not it is relevant to the article.

"He worked his whole life helping the handicapped. He even sold his house and lived in a cardboard box so he could give them all of his salary. He volunteered at the hospital at least 40 hours every week. Some have accused him of putting a piece of gum under his desk in sixth grade."

Good point, Bigg.

They spend so much time trying to hide "bias" that things become impossible. It is utterly unfair to try so hard to be "fair" that it ends up like all "politically correct" efforts, self defeating.

I like bias. I want my bias right up front where I can see it, where I can deal with it, and so I can make up my own mind.

There is much confusion about bias and fairness. Throwing in a token counterpoint at the end doesn't provide "balance", or anything useful at all. It's like serving a lemon as a counterpoint to chocolate cake. It serves no purpose, and it doesn't make the cake more fair and balanced.

Quoting:I like bias. I want my bias right up front where I can see it, where I can deal with it, and so I can make up my own mind.

Case in point: Maureen O'Gara.

I found the whole talking of open source in the article confusing. When I read the article (and especially the end) it sounded like he was saying that FOSS contains the same anti-features, but people will remove them on their machines by hacking the code.

Quoting:... it sounded like he was saying that FOSS contains the same anti-features,..

That's what it looked like to me too.

> it sounded like he was saying that FOSS contains the same anti-features

Maybe he was thinking of KDE4.

My take on it was that open software _doesn't_ have this problem simply _because_ it can be (and maybe is?) so easily removed. I don't know of any instance where such a tactic was actually tried in a truely open source program.

I thought the article was very pro Open Source until that last paragraph.