What a jackhole!

A study in basically why open source works and is always better - than crappy corporations that would write a blog like this.

1. "A coherent vision requires centralized design" - BULLSHIT! you can do open source with a centralized or whatever kind of governance you want.

2. "High-level languages need more design than low-level languages" - INSULTING BULLSHIT! maybe true, but who said open source can't handle the "more" design required? I can't think of a single open source design with, say 30 million lines of code, that is "designed" ok.

3. "You need multidisciplinary teams to unify disparate fields" - BULLSHIT! so, open source is never ever multidisiplinary? from disparate fields? This is EXACTLY why it should be open! How do you even presume to do this by excluding all the diverse stakeholders?

4. "Hard cases and boring stuff need to get done too" - BULLSHIT! the only thing harder than getting some dedicated guy working for free doing the hard boring stuff, is to get your management to allocate schedule and budget for it.

5. "Crowd-sourced decisions can be bad for you" - INSULTING BULLSHIT! so unilateral corporate decisions are never bad? And open source necessarily means crowd-sourced governance? And even if the decisions are sometimes bad, couldn't they also more often be good?

6. "Our developers work for you, not just themselves" - TOTAL BULLSHIT! they 100% work for YOU not me. I'd love to help. For free! but I can't because a) I don't work for you and b) if I did, you wouldn't let me do what I want.

7. "Unified computation requires unified design" - INSULTING BULLSHIT! so.. open source can never create a unified design? You could literally change nothing in your governance structure, publish your source, and it'd be exactly as unified (whatever that means) as it already is. But by magic, open sourceness means that the contributors are incapable of creating a unified vision?

8. "Unified representation requires unified design" - BULLSHIT LAZY COPY OF PREVIOUS ARGUMENT!

9. "Open source doesn’t bring major tech innovation to market" - BULLSHIT! WHAT! inovation has always been linked to coloboration and sharing. You can't inovate in an echo chamber. Yes, right, you go on paying your developers to inovate on a fixed schedule and budget...

10. "Paid software offers an open quid pro quo" - LYING BULLSHIT! like because the open-ness of open software is so sneaky that even when it tells you exactly what you get, you can't be sure. And definitely corporate license agreements bring 100% clarity and performance guarantees.

11. "It takes steady income to sustain long-term R&D" - Yes!!! and that is why companies should exist. Open source does not mean that wolfram won't sell licenses and make money $$$. In fact, the author has already assured us that wolfram developers are the best, the most unified, hard-boring-working, coherent, inovative people to be found. So regardless of the sourcing, they'd be dominant in the market, right? So what's the problem?

12. "Bad design is expensive" - INSULTING BULLSHIT! Soooo... open source == bad design and you == good design? ya... And designs hidden behind a closed source wall are never, ever bad, right?