… Not politically better, not feel good better, not any of that. Well, yes, that too. But for all areas where Open Source is developed, it it simply better technologically. Anybody telling you different is selling you a bill of goods.<\/p>\n
I tried to say something of this sort here, on Bill Hooker’s blog post “On science and selfishness,<\/a>” but his #%$@$#$ (presumably OpenSource) blog software would not accept my comment!!!! (Hey Bill, get that fixed, man, you’re ruining it for everybody!!!). So, instead of saying it there, I’ll say it here. This is my comment:<\/p>\n Bill:<\/p>\n I deeply disagree with an underlying assumption made in this blog post. That assumption is that it is NOT the case that OpenSource software and OpenAccess publication are technically, systemically, and procedurally superior<\/em> to closed source equivalents. That is simply untrue.<\/p>\n For the most part, developed OpenSource software is technologically superior to closed source alternatives. More secure, less buggy, faster and more efficient, stable features that don’t change to suit marketing strategies, support that does not rely on Orwellian tactics and so on. In the mathematical sciences, OpenSource software is the ONLY valid way to carry out studies that you expect to be taken seriously (though most math people don’t get this, astonishingly) The OpenAccess publishing sources are simply a zillion times easier to use for the end user. How is that not better?<\/p>\n Otherwise I agree with everything you said.<\/p>\n Greg<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" … Not politically better, not feel good better, not any of that. Well, yes, that too. But for all areas where Open Source is developed, it it simply better technologically. Anybody telling you different is selling you a bill of goods. I tried to say something of this sort here, on Bill Hooker’s blog post … Continue reading Open Source and Open Access is Simply Better<\/span>