On: The Government's $200,000 Useless Android Applicat...

[1010101111001]

No. I explained what I meant and you still don't seem to get it. Read what I said about the naysayers again.

You asked for the historical evidence I mentioned and I gave you the example of the TCP/IP stack we're all using.

I shouldn't have to say it but "open source" does not produce software, developers produce software. They might be working on a closed project or they might be working on an open one. The open/closed status of the project does not determine the quality of the software. The developers do.

You appear to be making the same mistake as the naysayers did when they said open source would never work. They believed the closed/open status of a project was somehow tied to quality. They were wrong. (Developers working on) open source projects can produce high quality software just as well as (developers working on) proprietary ones can. You cited the example of KDE's webkit to indicate you agreed.

If this is still somehow confusing to you, then I'm afraid I cannot help you.

[rbarooah → 1010101111001]

Earlier you said: "What's different now is that there is historical evidence that open source projects can produce higher quality software than proprietary ones."

Now you say: "The open/closed status of the project does not determine the quality of the software. The developers do."

So mentioning open source was irrelevant then?

[1010101111001 → rbarooah]

One more try to get through to you then I'm giving up.

Here goes.

What are the arguments _against_ open source?

What if someone says, "Open source means poor quality"?

You can look back on the last 15 years, choose some examples of open source software and rebut that with evidence.

I would make this rebuttal.

You apparently would as well.

Now, what are the arguments _for_ open source?

You could say "Open source produces high quality software." Note: Not "can produce" but "produces". As in always.

You could say that.

I wouldn't.

I wouldn't make that argument.

I would argue open source make sense because the source can be reviewed and corrected if necessary, without being dependent on a proprietary vendor.

Hope this is clear.