4 ms·

Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. It is just software and its quality will largely depend on how much e

by _pdp_ 10y ago

Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. It is just software and its quality will largely depend on how much effort the developer is putting into it. Typically some form of commercialization is often a good incentive to improve any type of software but obviously there are plenty of examples that go against this rule. It is common to see these days open source or free software that comes with some form of commercial options and that's very good in my opinion because you get the best of both worlds - still it doesn't mean it is better or worse. Is Gitlab better than Github? It depends who you ask.

DrJohanson 10y ago
I don't know about Gitlab but Gogs[0] is as good. [0] https://gogs.io/ https://gogs.io/
mordocai 10y ago
> Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. Strongly disagree with your implication here and the rest of your comment, though I agree with the literal text you wrote in this sentence. FOSS is superior for the end user because it can help avoid vendor lock-in (someone else can always take the code and run their own service/app that the user can then switch to) and allows the user themselves to pay someone to fix issues/maintain the software if it becomes unmaintained. You are quite correct in your point that FOSS is not necessarily more featureful, more secure, or easier to use than proprietary solutions though.
- _pdp_ 10y ago
  I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with some parts of your comment. FOSS is not superior to the end user because by no means it helps with the vendor lock-in. Remember that the vendor in FOSS is the developer and when they decide to ditch the product it does not mean that someone automatically will step in to take the job. Therefore, the customer is locked in anyway. You are assuming that the customer will support the product but they may not have the technical know-how nor the interest to do it. What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product? In fact, more often than not you see the opposite happening - someone creates an open-source alternative of an already established closed-source products or services to piggyback on the established success. I am dissing FOSS. :)I am only only trying to present a balanced view that at the end of the day all software is equal as long as it does the job for the time it is used.
  - mordocai 10y ago
    > What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product? The difference is that with an open source product you can always choose to pay someone to maintain it, even if just for long enough to move away from it. With a closed source product you are SOL and may not even be allowed to use it anymore after the company goes under depending on the details.
- codazoda 10y ago
  Vendor lock-in is often solved by competition for proprietary software so it's not a great argument by itself. Software patents not withstanding.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  I disagree with your disagreement. The usability and functionality of the software is the paramount concern. Who cares if you're not "locked into it" if the software sucks to begin with? You probably wouldn't start anyway.

by _pdp_ 10y ago

DrJohanson 10y ago

I don't know about Gitlab but Gogs[0] is as good. [0] https://gogs.io/ https://gogs.io/

mordocai 10y ago

> Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. Strongly disagree with your implication here and the rest of your comment, though I agree with the literal text you wrote in this sentence. FOSS is superior for the end user because it can help avoid vendor lock-in (someone else can always take the code and run their own service/app that the user can then switch to) and allows the user themselves to pay someone to fix issues/maintain the software if it becomes unmaintained. You are quite correct in your point that FOSS is not necessarily more featureful, more secure, or easier to use than proprietary solutions though.

_pdp_ 10y ago
I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with some parts of your comment. FOSS is not superior to the end user because by no means it helps with the vendor lock-in. Remember that the vendor in FOSS is the developer and when they decide to ditch the product it does not mean that someone automatically will step in to take the job. Therefore, the customer is locked in anyway. You are assuming that the customer will support the product but they may not have the technical know-how nor the interest to do it. What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product? In fact, more often than not you see the opposite happening - someone creates an open-source alternative of an already established closed-source products or services to piggyback on the established success. I am dissing FOSS. :)I am only only trying to present a balanced view that at the end of the day all software is equal as long as it does the job for the time it is used.
- mordocai 10y ago
  > What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product? The difference is that with an open source product you can always choose to pay someone to maintain it, even if just for long enough to move away from it. With a closed source product you are SOL and may not even be allowed to use it anymore after the company goes under depending on the details.
codazoda 10y ago
Vendor lock-in is often solved by competition for proprietary software so it's not a great argument by itself. Software patents not withstanding.
st3v3r 10y ago
I disagree with your disagreement. The usability and functionality of the software is the paramount concern. Who cares if you're not "locked into it" if the software sucks to begin with? You probably wouldn't start anyway.