4 ms·

I don't know if this is a unique view, but I'll put it out there: I don't use MySQL because it's open source. I couldn't care less if it's open source or not.

• doki_pen 17y ago
  rms has always been of the opinion that the quality of software is less important then the freedom of software. He has admitted that open source software _may_ lead to better quality, but it doesn't matter. His ideal is freedom for the users of the software.
  • axod 17y ago
    >> "His ideal is freedom for the users of the software." sure. But I think 99.9% of people just don't care if they're "free" by his definition of free. If I buy a laptop, I consider myself free, even though I don't have the schematics, the moulds used to make the plastic, the development details etc. But what if the laptop co goes out of business, and my laptop case gets a chip! How will I make a replacement case if I don't have access to the moulding details etc! Well, I don't really care that much. It's just an odd thing to strive for IMHO. I think one of the problems with open source is that it assumes anyone can just 'take over' some source code and fix bugs etc. The reality however is that it's not that simple. Just like giving me plastic moulds is nice in theory, but pretty useless in practice.
    • doki_pen 17y ago
      Often times, when I must use proprietary software in the course of my employment, I run into some issue with the software that is incredibly annoying. I'm sure there are many other users who feel the same was as I do about a particular piece of proprietary software. I feel frustrated that I can't fix what is seemingly a simple issue, or even see why it's happening because it is proprietary. When I use copyleft software, this rarely happens. I can only assume it's because some other user has experienced the same annoyance and fixed it already. But when I do run into something that's broken, I am able to look at the source, make a patch, and submitted it back upstream. This is usually with software that has a smaller user base. I value this freedom and am glad that RMS and others have worked so hard to spread it.
      • axod 17y ago
        I don't think it correlates at all. The only important thing here is having people behind a project that care, respond to any queries, and are actively developing/fixing/maintaining. Good software isn't good because it's open or closed source. It's good because people are sitting behind it and care about it. That's personally all I care about - that the people 'behind' the software care, and will fix any issues that need fixing.
        • loup-vaillant 17y ago
          What guarantees the existence of such people, if not the freedom of the software ? The only moment a free software project can die is by having (almost) no user who cares any more. Proprietary software is often not as long lived. EDIT: Clarification (apparently, the above is cryptic enough to warrant a downmod): in any software project, the founders of the project can quit, go broke, die, or just be much less active. And no one can guarantee that it won't happen. If the software is GPL, you have the guarantee that when that happens, some more developers can jump in and take the lead. If no one do so that means only one thing: no one cares enough (including users, which could hire someone). Good riddance. Example: CVS is dying because everyone is willing to switch to SVN. If the software is proprietary, that possibility may be denied by the original founders. Which means a proprietary software can die while people still care. Example: old versions of Windows or Word, or games on old platforms. Which leads to the obvious question: for any proprietary software, can you guarantee that it won't die before no one cares? I think not.
          • axod 17y ago
            >> "What guarantees the existence of such people, if not the freedom of the software ?" Usually some aspect of monetization. For instance, plentyoffish.com is free, closed source, but has someone behind it who cares, because it's his livelihood.
            • loup-vaillant 17y ago
              But, he can be hit by a bus, or get hired. (Details in my post above.)
    • btilly 17y ago
      The reason why the laptop example works like you say is that laptops are commodities for you. It isn't that hard to exchange laptops and it isn't that big a deal once you do. The problem with software is that once it is integrated into your software ecosystem you often wind up locked in. If that software stops being able to work for you (for instance your license stops working and you can't purchase another one), then you frequently have a very difficult transition ahead since there is no drop in replacement available. RMS sees this, knows that users often don't realize their potential future pain until they are committed to it, and concludes that non-free software is evil. By contrast an economist sees this, assumes that the market will be rational, and writes a book like Information Rules explaining how one should best act given the economic facts. My view is that most people who really care about software have been around the block enough times to have experienced the economic fact and in practice act more like economic theory says you should act. Of course this provides an economic argument for free software, which has of course lead to the open source set of arguments. YMMV. And on this topic it tends to vary widely.
  • anonjon 17y ago
    Right, I think the point is that quality and freedom are not correlated. Regardless of the code quality, the user needs to have the ability to fix bugs, write extensions, and distribute them whether or not the original author is around or cares about the software anymore. So it kind of hearkens back to the day when computer users were also competent programmers. I think the modern day analogy to proprietary software would be someone sending you a locked excel sheet with a license that says 'you may not change, copy or distribute this excel sheet,' and then having glaring error in the spreadsheet. You see the error and want to fix it but are obligated not to because of some silly rules. Instead you have to email the idiot who wrote the broken excel sheet, and have him fix it. (And wait for him to reply, which he may or may not do). This resonates with me because I hate wasting my time on extra steps. I should be able to email the guy 'Hey, i fixed a bug, look at this' and be done with it. Granted, the majority of computer users now are not of this personality type, and even if they are, wouldn't have the expertise or experience. For FSF to really win, we would at least need a much higher level of computer education in the general population. (IMO 90% of people are functionally illiterate, with regard to computing).
• JulianMorrison 17y ago
  The fact it's open source means you can't get the rug yanked out from under you by the copyright owner. - They can't suddenly change their mind and make the next version for-pay. - They can't impose pushy conditions, Bitkeeper style. - They can't cease development, while sitting on the copyright. - And if they go bankrupt the code won't be left in legal limbo.
  • axod 17y ago
    The worst thing for me about open source is the mass of abandoned projects no one cares about any more. Don't get me wrong, I like open source and use it a ton, but it's not the only way. As I say, IMHO the main thing is that someone is behind the software that cares.
    • lutorm 17y ago
      You really think there are fewer abandoned close-source projects? It's just that you never even knew they existed, unlike the open-source projects. Classic selection bias.
    • JulianMorrison 17y ago
      If a project is abandoned and you need it, the ability to work with the code yourself (or hire it done) might mean the difference between a controlled migration and a crash migration that would probably fail. It helps if the vendor cares, but they might not have a choice. There are plenty of ways to lose control of a copyright, from being bought out to bankruptcy.
  • autarch 17y ago
    This is not correct. The copyright owner can, by definition, do whatever they want with the next version, as long as they hold the copyright for the entire code base. Nothing ever prevented MySQL AB (or Sun) from shutting down their public repos and releasing the next version of MySQL as proprietary software. Of course, this would almost certainly lead to an immediate fork, but it has always been possible.
  • ErrantX 17y ago
• mechanical_fish 17y ago
  I use it because it's free, in active development, and pretty much works well... ... and how many closed-source projects meet the same criteria? A few loss leaders here and there, I suppose: Flash, a few web browsers. Though John Gruber, among others, might dispute the statement that Flash "works well": http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/tablet_musings http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/tablet_musings Although I do wonder how many people actively go through open source projects looking at code Not that many people, really. Just the talented open-source developers, the ones who do important foundational work. Or the ones who want to become talented, and perhaps someday accomplish some significant foundational work. Or the ones who want to accomplish something that doesn't come right out of a can, which includes the majority of the Drupal and Rails programmers that I've met. Still, a small fraction of humanity. But that misses the point. In an ideal world, nobody would ever need to read the code for open source projects: The code would work 100% of the time, and would do just what you want, and would have comprehensive and readable documentation. Even now, the open-source code I use works an astonishing percentage of the time. The point is that you don't want the one occasion when it stops working to grind your project to a halt for two years while you lobby the manufacturer for a new release, or beg for explanations of obscure algorithms, or pay thousands of dollars for a proprietary training course, or prostrate yourself before the author on the internet and beg for some attention to your particular problems: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034584 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034584 It's true that, paradoxically, people who work with open source tools don't spend a lot of time using or thinking about their ability to read the source code. They don't have to. On the rare occasions when they have to use the source, they just do it and move on, with relatively little loss of time and no worries.
  • axod 17y ago
    >> ... and how many closed-source projects meet the same criteria? Most websites are closed source, free, and in active development. I think the model works well. If things are broken, they're usually fixed quickly as long as someone behind the website cares about it.
    • lutorm 17y ago
      But that's the point. They're only fixed as long as someone behind the website cares about it. The fact that you care about it helps not one bit.