why not create a community based development to add features to bitcomet from the side of users rather than spend ages making things work, the more people developing the faster the fixes and additions there can be
There are plenty of open-source clients already and BitComet has never shown any interest in becoming another one of them.
The open-source clients don’t seem to be the cutting-edge here. Rather, it’s BitComet and µtorrent, both proprietary, that are more innovative and driving development.
The history of open-source development doesn’t suggest that it’s faster or freer of defects – if Linux is any guide, the reverse is true.
Actually I think Linux is one of the open-source success stories. There are many good stable linux distributions, their only major shortfalling is support from hardware manufacturers.
As for bittorrent clients, it was the opensource clients that the anti p2p groups have used to try to bring down bittorrent filesharing. I’d hate to see bitcomet used in such a way.
Sure there are, but it took a very long time and a very firm hand to get to and keep stable versions. In fact, they were basically split from the linux tree. Take Red Hat, for example, they were the first really successful distro, and they did it by putting their foot down about updates.
Linux basically did not control and test adequately. For a long time, if you wanted something stable you went with BSD instead. It’s still more stable.
For the most part, Linux would get things first, but they’d be bug-ridden, and it would take a very long time to work them all out. Linux was basically happy to take in all contributions from anywhere, but didn’t have a firm test harness or protocol. BSD, on the other hand, wanted you to have a track record, and they tested the bejeezus out of new contributions before they became part of the distro.
MySQL, now THAT’s an open-source success story, but it wasn’t possible until there were stable distros for it to run on.
You mean oracle, right? It’s hard to see righteousness when community based open source software gets $1billion price tag.
Maybe, but it’s also really hard to deny the success of it.
Before Oracle bought it, MySQL had earned its place, beating out a lot of competition to do it. Stable enough for enterprise use, carefully controlled releases that didn’t break existing software, all the things that Linux and most FOSS software is not.
But even then, nobody looked to MySQL for leadership, for being on the cutting edge of database technology while Oracle or SQL server played catch-up. It was the other way around, with MySQL trying to duplicate the features Oracle offered. (Not that Oracle is a miracle of stability either. There’s a "home"version of it. Try installing it yourself. Sheesh.)