Stupidity at the office

TG · 26th May 2006

Good grief, it amazes me at the lack of knowledge that some people have. The problem is, they know things - things that they've heard here and there and have never bothered to research, yet they flaunt it as gospel truth.

For example:

Originally Posted by Some Complete Tool

Synchronization across the WAN
Novell hosts an open-source mechanism ‘Rsync’ that can be used to synchronize datasets across a network. The mechanism works on blocks of data rather than files and can be scheduled to occur at a time when the WAN is under-utilised.

This might prove to be more efficient and simpler than tape handling and it is proposed that this be considered, the disadvantage of Open Source being that no vendor support is available. It is proposed, however, that if the product solves the problem elegantly and efficiently then we might be willing to put measures into place to manage the resultant risk.

My main point of contention being the bit in green.

My response was as follows:

Originally Posted by Another Complete Tool

Proposed RSync solution:

I have a depth of experience regarding this program, and unfortunately it is most definitely NOT a reliable process on the Novell platform.
While it is an extremely stable and reliable program on its native Linux/Unix platform, the Novell port has issues with stability - it has a nasty habit of crashing entire servers.
ALSO, it does NOT fully support the Novell file system, meaning that Novell specific file / directory attributes are lost, and need to be saved / restored with additional utilities, which adds to the complexity of the process.

Also, while not entirely relevant, there seems to be a misconception that open source products do not have vendor support. Completely untrue. There are many open source products out there that have the support of vendors, usually for a small fee, but not always.

Please direct your web browser to http://www.opensource.org to educate yourselves regarding the concept behind the Open Source initiative.

From the FAQ:
Isn't it hard to get reliable support for open-source software?

Absolutely not! InfoWorld's 1997 "Best Product of the Year" roundup should have demolished this myth once and for all. Read the article to see their analysis, including this quote:

... readers who are using Linux in a business environment said they found the support they received to be far more impressive than what they were used to with commercial software.

Linux is not an exception. In fact, business users will generally find that mature open-source products are far more reliable to begin with, and that when support is needed it is dramatically cheaper and easier to get than from closed vendors.

**doobiwan** · 26th May 2006

Blanket assumptions are a pain in the a$$.

**sss** · 26th May 2006

this is why i write my own software!

stoke · 26th May 2006

I've got a really cool example of MS BS:
Take a good look at the Microsoft Enterprise Library 2006 ...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...ml/EntLib2.asp

Every single feature in there is now provided in DotNet 2.0 natively but in a different way.
Yet I still get top MS morons trying to get me to use the Enterprise Library.
Fsking morons.

TG .. Paragraph one was awesome then you smudged the issues .. you should have ended your reply after paragraph one.

Alluvium · 26th May 2006

thats why i get other people to write software for me

**sss** · 26th May 2006

this is why people pay me to write software!

**doobiwan** · 26th May 2006

. . .And that's why I get people to pay me to write software for them

[Doh! Concurrent threading issues!

]

Stoke, I had a VERY bad experience with the EL for v1.1, and I'd be loathe to use it again. (Nuke the App process for our web app without even an error)

Having said that, Simple wrappers are a good thing. I'm current .NET OSS whoring on he project I'm working on RSS.NET, OpenRico / Atlas, Monorail all really good ideas, that save me days of work.