My computing practical exam source code.
-
@boomzilla said:
Since FOSS projects tend to start life in the public (e.g., github, sourceforge, etc), you see a lot more of them than you do of commercial products.
Yes.
@boomzilla said:
There are more shitty shareware applications than there are quality things like Excel or Outlook.
Of course. FOSS being 99% shit does not contradict commercial software being 97%. Still 97% is better than 99%. (I'm obviously pulling numbers out of my ass, but I think the proportions are about right.)
@boomzilla said:
Most of the garbage we see and talk about around here is not FOSS, but proprietary stuff.
Because what's the point? First off, most of us are writing about work experience, which is obviously overwhelmingly commercial. And if you bitch about FOSS, you just get whiny assholes telling you how if you don't like LibreOffice, you can just grab the source and make it into something acceptable.
Here's my position (which I've repeated a hundred times, but whatever): there is good FOSS, but it is far less common. Most of the decent FOSS I can think of only about as good as the equivalent commercial software, not better. Meanwhile, when it comes to most end-user type software, FOSS is a goddamn failure. The only desktop apps FOSS has managed to succeed with were web browsers, and that's a dubious distinction. Office software? A/V editing? Email/calendaring/groupware? A goddamn windowing system? FOSS is fail in each category.
What is FOSS good at? Writing C compilers, core kernel features, HTTP daemons, mail daemons, scripting languages... And it's not like any of these really clean the clock of the commercial equivalents--they're usually on-par (or even below, if you value usability..)
-
@derari said:
As an OSS developer, I may care because I am a nice guy, am very passionate about the project, or just have nothing else to do; but that is nothing that can be demanded.
You can do whatever the fuck you like. To be what's commonly meant by a word, though, you must do that which is defined by it. In this case, that's producing something that does the job well.
Everyone here agrees with you that OSS is barely software, and actually closer to performance art or masturbation. You're just the only one who doesn't realise that's what you're saying.
@derari said:If the UI sucks, the UI sucks, and the application in its entirety sucks as well. But it's still possible that 95% of the code are of very high quality.
If there's 5% shit in my sandwich, I really don't care about the type of mayo you used.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
There are more shitty shareware applications than there are quality things like Excel or Outlook.
Of course. FOSS being 99% shit does not contradict commercial software being 97%. Still 97% is better than 99%. (I'm obviously pulling numbers out of my ass, but I think the proportions are about right.)
I could live with those proportions. A typical "statistically significant, but not significant" statistic.
@morbiuswilters said:
Here's my position (which I've repeated a hundred times, but whatever): there is good FOSS, but it is far less common.
The difference, I think, is simply the incentives. A business has the profit motive to improve, whereas FOSS stuff typically does not. And the drudgery might not even be enough to try to build something to replace stuff where there isn't anything approaching a proprietary non-WTF product (I'm thinking of things like medical office software). Some things (windowing systems) are a matter of taste, though I will concede that FOSS tends to be a bit buggier in what gets released. That's one of the cons of a release early, release often strategy.
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
Most of the garbage we see and talk about around here is not FOSS, but proprietary stuff.
Because what's the point? First off, most of us are writing about work experience, which is obviously overwhelmingly commercial. And if you bitch about FOSS, you just get whiny assholes telling you how if you don't like LibreOffice, you can just grab the source and make it into something acceptable.There's no shortage of FOSS bitching around here, and the push back goes both ways. It's often the difference between people writing software for themselves (and since they wrote the interface, they already know how to use it) and PHB managed disasters. I've certainly been responsible for some awful interfaces for stuff I wrote just for myself and then unleashed, because, hey, why not? Sometimes I've made an effort to clean it up and make it easier for others to use. Of course, the same people who say how great MS is for their backward compatibility tell us how awful it is that FOSS tools keep their crufty interfaces.
The contrarian in me just has to argue with people making retarded blanket statements either way, which just makes me vulnerable to hyperbolic trolling, but whatever.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Of course. FOSS being 99% shit does not contradict commercial software being 97%. Still 97% is better than 99%.
No, it's not. Some good products for money and very few good products for free is still better than some good products for money and nothing for free.@TDWTF123 said:
If there's 5% shit in my sandwich, I really don't care about the type of mayo you used.
And yet you cannot blame the mayo, which is what some people here are doing.
-
Commercial software typically is written to fulfill a business need, which leads to a set of requirements it needs to fill. There's a requirement gathering/discovery phase, specs may be written, there's testing, code review, issues are reported and fixed, then finally UAT sign-off, etc.
Contrast with the typical open-source scenario: Jim Bob wants a doohickey that does X, Y, and Z, but he doesn't like the turquoise theme of existing software package Foo. Jim Bob is the stakeholder, the project manager, the developer, the QA team, etc: he wears all the hats. One day he's done or bored so he decides to release his creation to share with the world. Jane decides to try it but she doesn't like that it deletes two characters when she hits backspace once. Jim Bob doesn't give two shits because he only uses the delete key anyway, and where does she get off complaining, it's not like she paid anything.
So yeah, it's mostly a process thing.
-
@derari said:
No, it's not. Some good products for money and very few good products for free is still better than some good products for money and nothing for free.
When businesses are backing it, yes it can be good. jQuery is fecking awesome but it gets a hell of a lot of backing from large companies, same with the linux kernel and pretty much every major FOSS project. In fact I can't think of a large FOSS project that exists today that doesn't have financial backing from large corporations. At the end of the day the project maybe free for us, but it isn't for "free" ... and these large companies don't invest in these out of the kindness of their hearts.
I would wager that most of the popular foss projects are either development tools or code libraries. FOSS is a failure in the consumer space outside of web browsers (which are themselves backed by Google and Opera).
-
@derari said:
But then she will probably not date you again and tell her friends to avoid you, which is basically the same thing that will happen to an OSS project with that attitude, so I guess the comparison works.
But this is the attitude most FOSS projects and FOSS defenders seem to have. If you're like "Hey, Eclipse is a two pump chump!" you'll get twenty people saying "Well, I don't know about you, but Eclipse love me long time. And besides, if you don't like it you have the dildo blueprints, just build your own injection-molding machines and stop acting like FOSS owes you anything!"
-
@derari said:
No, it's not. Some good products for money and very few good products for free is still better than some good products for money and nothing for free.
Look, this gets us back to "Linux is only free if your time is worthless." There are very few pieces of software to expensive that using a shitty FOSS alternative makes any sense whatsoever. Even Photoshop is worth the few hundred bucks over having to use Gimp. I don't know why you people value your time so little, but my personal time is probably worth about $100 /hr. If it takes me 4 hours to do something in FOSS that I could do in 1 hour with commercial software, then that commercial software better cost more than $300 and that better be the last time the FOSS app give me trouble.
Meanwhile, my professional time is worth easily in excess of $1000 /hr. So pissing away 3 hours on some app when I could just buy something for $1000 is stupid.
Anyway, the entire point of this argument wasn't "Can FOSS produce a few good pieces of software?" it was "Does FOSS produce better results?" And clearly it can't.
-
@derari said:
To me, this reads like developers should care about how easy it is for other people to use their software. Because ... ? I agree that many OSS projects suck from a user's perspective. But that doesn't mean that the code is bad.
Yeah it does.
-
@lucas said:
...same with the linux kernel...
And something else: it ends up being a very mixed bag. For example, the Linux kernel NFS server is utter shit when compared with stuff like NetApp. But NetApp spends time on kernel development and it sponsors kernel events--but just for making the NFS client rock. Now, you don't have to be Colombo to figure out that they have a vested interest in making sure Linux can mount their NFS servers but not in having Linux seriously compete with them in the NFS server space.
What about the fact that, in 2013, Linux still doesn't have a decent, built-in snapshotting facility? LVM snapshots take a massive shit on performance and you can't export the incremental diff and back it up off-site. btrfs is still probably a half-decade away from being usable in production, assuming it ever is. ZFS is great, but you gotta compile your own fucking kernel because the stupid fucking GPL is incompatible with the fucking Oracle open source license.. (Seriously, when people try to argue FOSS works, just point them to the GPL and all the useful functionality that is prohibited in Linux because linking GPL'd code with practically anything else is illegal.. Jesus Fuck, and people think Microsoft are licensing goons..)
-
-
@blakeyrat said:
@derari said:
To me, this reads like developers should care about how easy it is for other people to use their software. Because ... ? I agree that many OSS projects suck from a user's perspective. But that doesn't mean that the code is bad.
Yeah it does.
"Baby I don't know why you're saying I'm a bad lover, those were the best seven seconds of my life."
I love the double standard with FOSS: it can't suck because it's free. It's like those lunatics who insist black people can't be racist because they're not "part of the hegemonic dialectic" or whatever. It's like "Oh, so black people, just by definition, can't be racist. That's a very convenient definition you've invented there.."
Then some black guy is like "Kill all the white folks!" and you're like "Whoa, I'm pretty sure that was racist" and those same people are like "Oh, no, he can't be racist, because he's not white" and it's just a mindfuck.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
the Linux kernel NFS server
whatThe Linux kernel NFS server. Why are you asking me to repeat myself?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
the Linux kernel NFS server
whatThe Linux kernel NFS server. Why are you asking me to repeat myself?
I suppose you think WindowBlinds is part of the Windows kernel now?
-
@Ben L. said:
I suppose you think WindowBlinds is part of the Windows kernel now?
No? But WTF does that have to do with the Linux kernel NFS server?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
"Baby I don't know why you're saying I'm a bad lover, those were the best seven seconds of my life."
Does not work, because the length is relevant for your overall lover-performance. It's more like, if you have a good technique but bad endurance, you are a bad lover, but someone with better endurance might still be able to learn from you.
I love the double standard with FOSS: ...
You don't have to quote every nonsense some OSS Nazi ever said to you just to keep the discussion going.
@morbiuswilters said:
If it takes me 4 hours to do something in FOSS that I could do in 1 hour with commercial software, then that commercial software better cost more than $300 and that better be the last time the FOSS app give me trouble.
I dare you to say that no one needs to care about Open Office and Gimp because there are better commercial alternatives.
@morbiuswilters said:
Anyway, the entire point of this argument wasn't "Can FOSS produce a few good pieces of software?" it was "Does FOSS produce better results?".
If you read the beginning of the thread, the original point was that OSS generally has good working conditions and can produce good software (regardless of its actual usefulness (OP's post was about an interactive (as in: you can't just call it from a script) comandline tool that does Caesar encryption, yet people agreed the code was basically good)).
-
@morbs said:
Meanwhile, my professional time is worth easily in excess of $1000 /hr.
Jesus. Either you're kidding, or you're some sort of millionaire programmer.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
the Linux kernel NFS server
whatThe Linux kernel NFS server. Why are you asking me to repeat myself?
I suppose you think WindowBlinds is part of the Windows kernel now?
The standard NFS server for Linux runs in kernel space. It is the Linux kernel NFS server. This is "interesting" for many reasons, not least of which is it makes exporting a FUSE filesystem over NFS basically impossible, or at least it did the last time I tried it.
-
@derari said:
I dare you to say that no one needs to care about Open Office and Gimp because there are better commercial alternatives.
Okay: nobody needs to care about Open Office and Gimp because they suck and there are better things out there.
@derari said:
If you read the beginning of the thread, the original point was that OSS generally has good working conditions and can produce good software (regardless of its actual usefulness (OP's post was about an interactive (as in: you can't just call it from a script) comandline tool that does Caesar encryption, yet people agreed the code was basically good)).
Yeah, I don't agree with that, obviously. Also: triple nested parens? Dude, wtf?
-
@MGTL said:
@morbs said:
Meanwhile, my professional time is worth easily in excess of $1000 /hr.
Jesus. Either you're kidding, or you're some sort of millionaire programmer.
No, that's pretty standard value of a senior programmers time. I didn't say I get paid $1000 /hr (seriously, why are tech people so illiterate??), I said my time is worth that to my employer. Obviously it's not something you can calculate exactly, but that's about the cutoff. That's because time I am pissing away trying to get some inferior piece of software working is time that could be spent moving actually profitable products to market. If we're delayed a week, that might be $100k we're losing.
And that's just the straightforward opportunity cost. There are costs that are much harder to quantify; for example, if our product got out a month earlier, then a competitor might see it and never start on their own product, thus saving us millions in lost revenue down the road. However, if we're delayed they might figure "Fuck it, we already started, let's keep going" which is obviously going to hurt us.
-
@Vanders said:
The standard NFS server for Linux runs in kernel space. It is the Linux kernel NFS server.
Goddamn you, why did you tell him? I wanted to see how long he'd refrain from doing a simple Google search to check his own flawed assumptions.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Vanders said:
The standard NFS server for Linux runs in kernel space. It is the Linux kernel NFS server.
Goddamn you, why did you tell him? I wanted to see how long he'd refrain from doing a simple Google search to check his own flawed assumptions.
what
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Vanders said:
The standard NFS server for Linux runs in kernel space. It is the Linux kernel NFS server.
Goddamn you, why did you tell him? I wanted to see how long he'd refrain from doing a simple Google search to check his own flawed assumptions.
My carefully honed internet sense told me it was right at the point where the entire thing was going to descend into name calling. Of course me telling him doesn't mean it won't anyway.
-
@Vanders said:
My carefully honed internet sense told me it was right at the point where the entire thing was going to descend into name calling.
Yes, but why did you take that from me?? D:
-
@morbs said:
No, that's [a] pretty standard value of [ ] senior programmers['] time. I didn't say I get paid $1000 /hr (seriously, why are tech people so illiterate?)
That was definitely the implication, given that you were talking about how much you were prepared to pay for software versus messing about with the free equivalent. I just assumed that you as a tech person were illiterate and misusing the word 'worth'.
-
@MGTL said:
@morbs said:
No, that's a nominal appraisal of the valuation of an erudite technomancer's expertise per arbitrary temporal unit.
FTFTFY
-
@MGTL said:
That was definitely the implication, given that you were talking about how much you were prepared to pay for software versus messing about with the free equivalent.
I'm not sure how that's the implication at all; in my job, the usual valuation of my time is something like $1k /hr. This isn't even my estimation, it's what I've been told to use as a guideline when deciding if I should pour time into trying to get some "free" software to work, or just buy some commercial alternative.
@MGTL said:
I just assumed that you as a tech person were illiterate and misusing the word 'worth'.
That's a fair assumption around these parts.
-
@morbs said:
I'm not sure how that's the implication at all;
[Some time earlier]
@morbs said:
So pissing away 3 hours on some app when I could just buy something for $1000 is stupid.
Maybe I read too much into stuff, but around here, companies usually buy equipment for employees, or at least allow grants to do so. That's how it's an implication.
-
@MGTL said:
Maybe I read too much into stuff, but around here, companies usually buy equipment for employees, or at least allow grants to do so. That's how it's an implication.
Well, I'm not saying I'm using my money, but I am the one executing the purchase.. By chance, are you not a native English speaker? Because what I said wouldn't be confusing to most people in the US.
-
@derari said:
Do you make daily builds? --> Not automated, but there is a good chance that after each commit, someone else will try a build.
So, no.
@derari said:
Do you fix bugs before writing new code? --> this can be a problem, when everyone only does what they find interesting
Also no, hence the plethora of OSS app rewrites containing the exact same bugs or variations thereof.
@derari said:
Do you use the best tools money can buy? --> everyone has to buy their own stuff
Again, no.
@derari said:
Do you have testers? --> depends on the popularity and release schedule, often some people are willing to try the latest unstable build.
FATAL SYSTEM ERROR
DO NOT PASS GO
DO NOT COLLECT TWO HUNDRED DOLLARSA tester is not a random person who uses your application; that's a user. (I understand your confusion, since you've probably never encountered either.) A tester isn't a developer either, a tester is a person who does nothing but test your application. That means they try their darndest to break it, and when they do, they file bug reports with concise repro steps so that you, the developer, can concentrate on fixing the bug instead of wasting your time trying to replicate it. A good tester is worth their weight in gold for the simple reasons that (a) they prevent the wasting of devs' time (b) they find and flag the most important bugs (which is rarely the same thing as the bugs the devs think are important).
If you don't have a dedicated tester(s), you don't have testers. Fin.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@MGTL said:
Maybe I read too much into stuff, but around here, companies usually buy equipment for employees, or at least allow grants to do so. That's how it's an implication.
Well, I'm not saying I'm using my money, but I am the one executing the purchase.. By chance, are you not a native English speaker? Because what I said wouldn't be confusing to most people in the US.
It's not confusing as such, just implying something different to what you meant (either way, you're still 'worth' a lot...). I am a native english speaker, although I notice that British people pay a lot more attention to pronouns than Americans do (rightly or wrongly), so maybe it's that. Or I'm just a imbecile, which is quite possible.
-
@MGTL said:
either way, you're still 'worth' a lot...
Aww, thank you!
@MGTL said:
I am a native english speaker, although I notice that British people pay a lot more attention to pronouns than Americans do (rightly or wrongly), so maybe it's that.
Possibly. I think mostly we just use pronouns differently (maybe that's what you meant). For example, it seems we refer to an institution (government, corporation, etc.) as an "it" whereas you refer to it as "they". ("Microsoft released its new browser" versus "Microsoft released their new browser".)
I don't know if it's different in countries that speak British English, but in the US I would say "I" when referring to something that I did, even if it was on behalf of my employer, using my employer's resources. shrug
-
@MGTL said:
I really hate it when people explain stuff away with 'you're too young and haven't experienced the real world yet', but given that you said you're about 16, in this case it's the answer. There's a huge difference between what you get paid, and what your time is charged out as - and you'll have that rammed home so you never forget it in your first real job, probably. The implication I drew from Morbs' original comment was that the rate for his personal time is what he'd want to give up his free time, and so by implication (perhaps a lot) more than he earns in his regular job, whereas the rate for his professional time is the cost to his employer of having him not do something that would be profitable if it was done. It has to account for the costs of his employment, including risk, capital investment, and so-on, as well as his salary, and show a profit on top of that.@morbiuswilters said:
@MGTL said:
Maybe I read too much into stuff, but around here, companies usually buy equipment for employees, or at least allow grants to do so. That's how it's an implication.
Well, I'm not saying I'm using my money, but I am the one executing the purchase.. By chance, are you not a native English speaker? Because what I said wouldn't be confusing to most people in the US.
It's not confusing as such, just implying something different to what you meant (either way, you're still 'worth' a lot...). I am a native english speaker, although I notice that British people pay a lot more attention to pronouns than Americans do (rightly or wrongly), so maybe it's that. Or I'm just a imbecile, which is quite possible.
-
Yeah well Morbs is still full of shit, or maybe he lives in the Most Expensive City On Earth.
I get billed at like $350 and I'm obviously much smarter and more handsome than he is.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I get billed at like $350
I don't want to cause trouble between a pimp and his bitches, but I paid way more than that for your purty li'l self that night in Tijuana.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I get billed at like $350...
This isn't billing, it's just what my time is worth, considering opportunity cost, etc. Considering there are frequently tasks where I can net the company $50k for an hour of work, I probably even estimated low.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
The implication I drew from Morbs' original comment was that the rate for his personal time is what he'd want to give up his free time, and so by implication (perhaps a lot) more than he earns in his regular job, whereas the rate for his professional time is the cost to his employer of having him not do something that would be profitable if it was done. It has to account for the costs of his employment, including risk, capital investment, and so-on, as well as his salary, and show a profit on top of that.
The rate for my personal time is $100 /hr. In other words, if it's going to take 3 hours, fuck it, I'd rather just spend $299.
The rate for my professional time I'm estimating at $1000 /hr. That's not billing, since my time isn't billed, but just what the company may lose out on if I spend a few hours diddling around with mediocre software.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
I get billed at like $350...
This isn't billing, it's just what my time is worth, considering opportunity cost, etc. Considering there are frequently tasks where I can net the company $50k for an hour of work, I probably even estimated low.
In other words, ass-pull.
-
@morbs said:
@MGTL said:
Share the love!either way, you're still 'worth' a lot...
Aww, thank you!
@morbs said:
Possibly. I think
I suppose I would see it as paying less attention regardless of whether that's the case or not, as it feels 'wrong', like the british english one probably feels 'wrong' to you.
mostly we just use pronouns differently (maybe that's what you meant).
For example, it seems we refer to an institution (government,
corporation, etc.) as an "it" whereas you refer to it as "they".
("Microsoft released its new browser" versus "Microsoft released their
new browser".)
I don't know if it's different in countries that speak British English,
but in the US I would say "I" when referring to something that I did,
even if it was on behalf of my employer, using my employer's resources.
shrugNah, if it were my employer's money, I'd say 'my employer bought this' even if I'd actually gone to the shop or clicked the button or whatever it is you do to buy software these days. shrugs
@TDWTF123 said:
I really hate it when people explain stuff away with 'you're too young
Fair enough, I'll bear that in mind. Obviously I realised that you're worth more to your company than they pay you, I just thought the ratio was smaller.
and haven't experienced the real world yet', but given that you said
you're about 16, in this case it's the answer.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
@derari said:
Do you fix bugs before writing new code? --> this can be a problem, when everyone only does what they find interesting
Also no, hence the plethora of OSS app rewrites containing the exact same bugs or variations thereof.
@derari said:
Do you use the best tools money can buy? --> everyone has to buy their own stuff
Again, no.
I can't tell if you agree or disagree with me here.
@derari said:
Do you have testers? --> depends on the popularity and release schedule, often some people are willing to try the latest unstable build.
... If you don't have a dedicated tester(s), you don't have testers. Fin.
Well, for the obvious reasons there are no testers that are not also users of the application. But then you might as well argue that MS Office has no real testers, because the people employed for testing also use the software for other tasks.Yet there are many people who try the daily builds to see if their stuff still works. While this might not achieve the same level of quality as professional testers do, it's still better then no testers. In fact, from my experience hundreds of users are way better than a few professional testers. It's just something you can't do in a commercial set-up, that's probably why it's not mentioned in Joel's list.
@morbiuswilters said:
@MGTL said:
That was definitely
the implication, given that you were talking about how much you were
prepared to pay for software versus messing about with the free
equivalent.I'm not sure how that's the implication at all; in my job, the usual
valuation of my time is something like $1k /hr. This isn't even my
estimation, it's what I've been told to use as a guideline when deciding
if I should pour time into trying to get some "free" software to work,
or just buy some commercial alternative.Now I wonder what the total value of your complaints about OSS is.
-
@MGTL said:
@morbs said:
No, that's a pretty standard value of senior programmers' time. I didn't say I get paid $1000 /hr (seriously, why are tech people so illiterate?)
That was definitely the implication, given that you were talking about how much you were prepared to pay for software versus messing about with the free equivalent. I just assumed that you as a tech person were illiterate and misusing the word 'worth'.
My time is worth precisely £1,048,576.69 per hour, because I say so. Its market value, on the other hand, is comparatively fuck all.
-
@derari said:
Now I wonder what the total value of your complaints about OSS is.
About $-1.50 per complaint. That's a minus sign. Morbs must vent his OSS frustrations at a willing audience; if he does not do so, his productivity declines due to bottled-up rage. By reading his posts, you are wasting your time (not just the time you spend actually reading, but also the time spend pondering its implications and possibly composing a response). Hence, the value of OSS complaints is negative, unless you accidentally learn something from them that causes your productivity to increase.
I'm only joking, please don't kill me.
-
@derari said:
But then you might as well argue that MS Office has no real testers, because the people employed for testing also use the software for other tasks.
Only if the testers are stupid enough to use testing builds of the software for their generic office work.
Let's be honest here, the only people that stupid also have this fixation with using FOSS for no logical reason.
-
@lucas said:
my favourite was a guy trying to get a mootools library working with jQuery
Worst case I saw was from a (now sacked) cow-orker who, when asked to write a program that - among other things - required ICMP pings, proceeded to copy/import most of the source of ping. Including comments[1]. When about 20 lines of code were all that was really required.
[1] Which is how we know that's what he did - the comments seemed most unlike him, so we googled the comments.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
I get billed at like $350...
This isn't billing, it's just what my time is worth, considering opportunity cost, etc. Considering there are frequently tasks where I can net the company $50k for an hour of work, I probably even estimated low.
In other words, ass-pull.
shrug $1k is what I've been told to use as a guideline.
-
@derari said:
Now I wonder what the total value of your complaints about OSS is.
I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say here..
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@derari said:
Now I wonder what the total value of your complaints about OSS is.
what
wTFY
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snowyowl said:
About $-1.50 per complaint.
I'm disappointed it's so little. :(
That's what she said.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@derari said:
Now I wonder what the total value of your complaints about OSS is.
I don't even know what the hell you're trying to say here..
I guess value is the wrong term. What I wanted to say is, if your time is worth 100$/h (assuming you are doing this in your free time), we can be lucky to be able to read your expensive posts for free.
