6 ms·

Admittedly my response is another extreme from the parent comment. I run an open-source project and certainly don't have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward i

Admittedly my response is another extreme from the parent comment. I run an open-source project and certainly don't have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward it. Although I also run a company behind that project and do get paid for some small subset of the work I do on the project; it'd be a lot harder to maintain that attitude if I didn't. I don't think open-source is perfect, it could be better and in my opinion is constantly improving. I disagree quite a bit with your characterization here though. You talk about there being a problem somewhere in open source and how it's not any particular persons fault that this convoluted system is not effective... what on earth is your definition of "effective" that it's failing to meet? You mention how "Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there" that sounds pretty effective to me. Consider some concrete examples here: - Linux, cornerstone of the web used by millions would have cost several billion dollars to build in a non open-source way. - Android, used on millions of phones because it's open source and others can modify it. - Chrome and firefox - Every programming language Believe it or not these projects didn't succeed despite the fact that they're open-source, they succeed very much because of it. So yeah, let's all grab the dick to the left and pretend that open-source is some broken paradigm that doesn't produce results because some new project doesn't have nice enough documentation. > Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect Some projects will care about these types of users, many won't. That's just the reality of software and there's no obligation to include everyone. Talk to an illiterate person and they'll tell you all about how ineffective the publishing industry is. That doesn't mean publishing should change.

couchand 10y ago
Maybe it's useful to point out here that: - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. I wholly agree with your sentiment, that open source projects work very hard and get little credit. I'd expect the GP agrees as well. Could you be a bit more generous to the author of the comment you responded to? Your point really lines up quite well with theirs, if you spend a few moments considering them.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  > - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. If you've actually tried using Chromium then you realize that this distinction doesn't make much sense. Chrome IS Chromium + Netflix + Flash + updater/Omaha + flashier logo. > - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. > - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap).
  - flukus 10y ago
    > Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. It's open source by the most limited definition possible. Google throw the source code over the fence occasionally.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap). Not a much of experience in the embedded market, high integrity market, medical devices, hardware design, Fintech, HPC or deployments that require certified compilers, right?
    - calinet6 10y ago
      That's certainly a difference from much of the open source world, with half the mobile phone market based on Android, for example. The market for certified compilers in the grand scheme is very small in comparison, so it could be argued that in general languages and programming is an area where open source has been wildly successful. And that makes sense—the tools that developers use being metatools that they can work on and improve, targeted directly at the audience that can work on them—I'd expect nothing less than near complete adoption of such a thing.
calinet6 10y ago
Yeah, it works for what it is—it's not wholly dysfunctional, obviously, but I was responding to a discussion bringing up several imperfect parts from both a creator and user perspective. I think they're common challenges in open source, and the problems are real, and shouldn't be ignored but rather improved. Every system has flaws. Some systems are better than others despite their flaws. Yet, I have never met a system that couldn't be improved in some way with careful understanding of its structure, states and flows, and leverage points.

couchand 10y ago

Maybe it's useful to point out here that: - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. I wholly agree with your sentiment, that open source projects work very hard and get little credit. I'd expect the GP agrees as well. Could you be a bit more generous to the author of the comment you responded to? Your point really lines up quite well with theirs, if you spend a few moments considering them.

Nullabillity 10y ago
> - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. If you've actually tried using Chromium then you realize that this distinction doesn't make much sense. Chrome IS Chromium + Netflix + Flash + updater/Omaha + flashier logo. > - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. > - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap).
- flukus 10y ago
  > Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. It's open source by the most limited definition possible. Google throw the source code over the fence occasionally.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  > As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap). Not a much of experience in the embedded market, high integrity market, medical devices, hardware design, Fintech, HPC or deployments that require certified compilers, right?
  - calinet6 10y ago
    That's certainly a difference from much of the open source world, with half the mobile phone market based on Android, for example. The market for certified compilers in the grand scheme is very small in comparison, so it could be argued that in general languages and programming is an area where open source has been wildly successful. And that makes sense—the tools that developers use being metatools that they can work on and improve, targeted directly at the audience that can work on them—I'd expect nothing less than near complete adoption of such a thing.

calinet6 10y ago

Yeah, it works for what it is—it's not wholly dysfunctional, obviously, but I was responding to a discussion bringing up several imperfect parts from both a creator and user perspective. I think they're common challenges in open source, and the problems are real, and shouldn't be ignored but rather improved. Every system has flaws. Some systems are better than others despite their flaws. Yet, I have never met a system that couldn't be improved in some way with careful understanding of its structure, states and flows, and leverage points.