5 ms·

> "Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary software." IMO open sour

> "Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary software." IMO open source advocates should stop defending and start making better free software. (most) People use what's good not what's ideologically pure. Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ...

tbrownaw 10y ago
Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ... ...it's still better, because it has Xfce. ;)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davexunit 10y ago
The "I'll use it when it's better" argument is self-defeating. If we can convince people why this software that may be practically inferior is better for our society and get them to invest in that mission, the missing features and bugs can be addressed more easily.
- mfukar 10y ago
  If that's not a self-defeating argument, I don't know what is.
  - jpetso 10y ago
    Suggesting a long-term investment instead of a short-term one is a self-defeating argument? Or the suggestion that convincing people about the value of long-term investments is feasible?
    - mfukar 10y ago
      The 'argument' is an infinite regression. At the end of it, if we can convince everyone that FOSS is better for our society, we can make it better for our society. But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better?
      - davexunit 10y ago
        >But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better? That would be an infinite regession, but free software is not about being better in a practical sense, but being better socially. You also make an assumption that everyone needs convincing, which is also not true.
        mfukar 10y ago
        If FOSS is not about being better in a practical sense, it can't possibly be better socially. Not in our capitalist societies, anyway.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      We'll fix user facing issues once we have users is self-defeating.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

tbrownaw 10y ago

Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ... ...it's still better, because it has Xfce. ;)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

davexunit 10y ago

The "I'll use it when it's better" argument is self-defeating. If we can convince people why this software that may be practically inferior is better for our society and get them to invest in that mission, the missing features and bugs can be addressed more easily.

mfukar 10y ago
If that's not a self-defeating argument, I don't know what is.
- jpetso 10y ago
  Suggesting a long-term investment instead of a short-term one is a self-defeating argument? Or the suggestion that convincing people about the value of long-term investments is feasible?
  - mfukar 10y ago
    The 'argument' is an infinite regression. At the end of it, if we can convince everyone that FOSS is better for our society, we can make it better for our society. But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better?
    - davexunit 10y ago
      >But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better? That would be an infinite regession, but free software is not about being better in a practical sense, but being better socially. You also make an assumption that everyone needs convincing, which is also not true.
      - mfukar 10y ago
        If FOSS is not about being better in a practical sense, it can't possibly be better socially. Not in our capitalist societies, anyway.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    We'll fix user facing issues once we have users is self-defeating.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]