4 ms·

By receiving GPLed software (with sources), compared to closed-down software that contains non-copyleft code? - No lock-in, no artificial obsolescence. This is

By receiving GPLed software (with sources), compared to closed-down software that contains non-copyleft code? - No lock-in, no artificial obsolescence. This is huge. - Better security: Much lesser risk of backdoors, homecalling "telemetries", weakened crypto, adware - Ability to pay 3rd parties to perform auditing, bugfixes, improve compatibility, even resurrect dead projects if needed

Karunamon 10y ago
If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is meaningless to me. If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware), and I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law. Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day. The last one is probably the only fair point, but then again, incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too.
- piaste 10y ago
  You only need _one_ power user to disable the lock-in mechanism or to discover the security holes. After that, every user benefits even if they themselves cannot do such things. Of course open source projects also suffer from bugs and incompatibilities, that's obvious and uninteresting. The point is that when you run into one of those, you have options available other than calling Larry Ellison and begging him to please fix your problems.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    I only need __one__ power user (or employee) to do the same thing with the proprietary software. It happens all the time.
    - piaste 10y ago
      Yeeeeeah, that's kinda like saying you can get your drugs from a police evidence locker. You only need __one__ burglar or rotten cop! It happens all the time! Why do we need dealers or legal distribution anyway? Plus you're contradicting your own argument. First you state that open source doesn't matter unless you can personally read and modify the code. Now you state that you're fine with proprietary software, because you only need one of the company's employees to remove lock-ins and fix security holes for you. Which one is it? Do you require being able to solve problems yourself, or can you rely on others?
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        I think you've misunderstood my argument (and not to mention mischaracterized with this loaded comparison of software to drugs!) One way or another, you're always relying on others. The contrived person who audits all their own source for all their apps down to the compiler level does not exist. Systems are too complicated for that. At that point, the question becomes "who do you rely on?" - and especially given recent history, I'm not convinced that "everyone who knows how to make a pull request" is a better answer than "only the people that made it". Certainly not convinced enough to begin moralizing about software development schemes...
- ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
  Quite a few strawmen here. > If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is meaningless to me. No. Knowledge like, for example, mathematics is unencumbered by patents and accessible to everybody. All humanity, directly or indirectly, benefits from it. Same for the freedom to read and modify code. > If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware) Mandatory food labeling, traceability and hygiene standards clearly improve food safety for everybody. Same here. >I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law. Not at all: given enough eyeballs Besides, perfect security is impossible and some cases of food poisoning don't disprove the effectiveness of food quality standards. > Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day. Availability of code allowed me and others to learn and review code. > incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too. Cherry picking again? Deliberate use of incompatible formats in order to create lock-in is very infrequent in comparison with closed source.
epidemian 10y ago
Completely agree. And extending the last point: the ability to, if needed, learn how the thing works by yourself and try to fix it/modify it to fit your needs. You don't need prior knowledge of plumbing to try and fix your broken kitchen, specially on today's world, with so much free information available. In a similar way, you don't need to be a software developer to hack your way through and learn how a program works and try to change it.

Karunamon 10y ago

If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is meaningless to me. If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware), and I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law. Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day. The last one is probably the only fair point, but then again, incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too.

piaste 10y ago
You only need _one_ power user to disable the lock-in mechanism or to discover the security holes. After that, every user benefits even if they themselves cannot do such things. Of course open source projects also suffer from bugs and incompatibilities, that's obvious and uninteresting. The point is that when you run into one of those, you have options available other than calling Larry Ellison and begging him to please fix your problems.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  I only need __one__ power user (or employee) to do the same thing with the proprietary software. It happens all the time.
  - piaste 10y ago
    Yeeeeeah, that's kinda like saying you can get your drugs from a police evidence locker. You only need __one__ burglar or rotten cop! It happens all the time! Why do we need dealers or legal distribution anyway? Plus you're contradicting your own argument. First you state that open source doesn't matter unless you can personally read and modify the code. Now you state that you're fine with proprietary software, because you only need one of the company's employees to remove lock-ins and fix security holes for you. Which one is it? Do you require being able to solve problems yourself, or can you rely on others?
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      I think you've misunderstood my argument (and not to mention mischaracterized with this loaded comparison of software to drugs!) One way or another, you're always relying on others. The contrived person who audits all their own source for all their apps down to the compiler level does not exist. Systems are too complicated for that. At that point, the question becomes "who do you rely on?" - and especially given recent history, I'm not convinced that "everyone who knows how to make a pull request" is a better answer than "only the people that made it". Certainly not convinced enough to begin moralizing about software development schemes...
ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
Quite a few strawmen here. > If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is meaningless to me. No. Knowledge like, for example, mathematics is unencumbered by patents and accessible to everybody. All humanity, directly or indirectly, benefits from it. Same for the freedom to read and modify code. > If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware) Mandatory food labeling, traceability and hygiene standards clearly improve food safety for everybody. Same here. >I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law. Not at all: given enough eyeballs Besides, perfect security is impossible and some cases of food poisoning don't disprove the effectiveness of food quality standards. > Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day. Availability of code allowed me and others to learn and review code. > incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too. Cherry picking again? Deliberate use of incompatible formats in order to create lock-in is very infrequent in comparison with closed source.

epidemian 10y ago

Completely agree. And extending the last point: the ability to, if needed, learn how the thing works by yourself and try to fix it/modify it to fit your needs. You don't need prior knowledge of plumbing to try and fix your broken kitchen, specially on today's world, with so much free information available. In a similar way, you don't need to be a software developer to hack your way through and learn how a program works and try to change it.