3 ms·

Points 1,2 and 4 also apply to open source. 1. Open Source makes me dependent on the whims of a particular community. If the group has infighting or lack of ac

Points 1,2 and 4 also apply to open source. 1. Open Source makes me dependent on the whims of a particular community. If the group has infighting or lack of activity, enjoy your abandonware. Yes, you could resurrect the project yourself, but that is a ridiculous burden for most situations. 2. It's often complicated sharing Open Source apps. They often require loads of tinkering, are poorly documented, and require specialized knowledge. Unless all of your friends and family are free software enthusiasts too, this isn't always simple. 4. Open source tools can also be hard to integrate with. You exchange licensing being a barrier for integration with lack of resources for designing good integration schemes. The larger projects can have significant resources to get around this.

the_af 10y ago
I agree with you that the overall point of "it's FOSS, so you can change the software" is flawed. Most of us don't have the time, knowledge or inclination to change the software. However, even though it's flawed it's not totally incorrect. You sometimes can change something -- maybe look at the internals and write some trivial patch to solve an immediate problem; maybe change some scripting bit -- and sometimes if there is infighting in the official community, a fork can happen. Not saying forks are not messy or even always possible, but the possibility is there and it happens. There is a huge difference between "it takes too much time/knowledge to change this piece of software" and "it's illegal to change it".
- mbrock 10y ago
  It's kind of like democracy. Sure, it's hard to elect a new leader or pass a new law, but it's possible, and that possibility is very valuable. It's also kind of like open knowledge, like science and math. Sure, it's hard to learn algebra or biology, but with hard work you can master it and contribute.
  - Skunkleton 10y ago
    Yeah, but sometimes the leader I voted for doesn't win, so we should go back to being a monarchy.
  - the_af 10y ago
    Completely agreed! I'm a fan of FOSS, and for me the balance is definitely positive. I like that the possibility is there, even if many times it's not within my skill or patience to fix it myself. Same with science indeed. Even if I cannot always fix things myself, looking at (and breaking!) free source code taught me a lot about programming.
- kmkemp 10y ago
  Well, maybe not any single person, but the chances that a community of people that share your opinion will contain at least one motivated individual willing to fork it are not too bad.
- YCode 10y ago
  And just because you aren't personally inclined to change it doesn't meant you can't benefit from the capability. Quite often I've used a fork of software that continued providing a feature the core distro discarded or added an experimental feature the main line hasn't been able to perfect enough to put into production. And it's common for someone else has to take up the banner to continue producing a library or software the original developer no longer has time or interest in producing. With commercial software however for the most part you're stuck providing a patch file with some hopefully not too complex instructions on how to hack it in.
  - the_af 10y ago
    Fully agreed. Maybe I worded my post incorrectly, but for me FOSS is a huge win.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
1. If it's abandonware, then relatively few people are affected. Also, you can always recompile it for your new platform. It's not seamless, but it's much better than an old binary. 2. Most free software is also available on proprietary platforms. Seldom an issue. Some people will say they "cannot" read your .odf document, but if they can't even install LibreOffice, they likely have more urgent problems, such as the crapload of malware that is most likely infesting their computer right now. 4. Don't have any counter-argument. You may be right.

the_af 10y ago

I agree with you that the overall point of "it's FOSS, so you can change the software" is flawed. Most of us don't have the time, knowledge or inclination to change the software. However, even though it's flawed it's not totally incorrect. You sometimes can change something -- maybe look at the internals and write some trivial patch to solve an immediate problem; maybe change some scripting bit -- and sometimes if there is infighting in the official community, a fork can happen. Not saying forks are not messy or even always possible, but the possibility is there and it happens. There is a huge difference between "it takes too much time/knowledge to change this piece of software" and "it's illegal to change it".

mbrock 10y ago
It's kind of like democracy. Sure, it's hard to elect a new leader or pass a new law, but it's possible, and that possibility is very valuable. It's also kind of like open knowledge, like science and math. Sure, it's hard to learn algebra or biology, but with hard work you can master it and contribute.
- Skunkleton 10y ago
  Yeah, but sometimes the leader I voted for doesn't win, so we should go back to being a monarchy.
- the_af 10y ago
  Completely agreed! I'm a fan of FOSS, and for me the balance is definitely positive. I like that the possibility is there, even if many times it's not within my skill or patience to fix it myself. Same with science indeed. Even if I cannot always fix things myself, looking at (and breaking!) free source code taught me a lot about programming.
kmkemp 10y ago
Well, maybe not any single person, but the chances that a community of people that share your opinion will contain at least one motivated individual willing to fork it are not too bad.
YCode 10y ago
And just because you aren't personally inclined to change it doesn't meant you can't benefit from the capability. Quite often I've used a fork of software that continued providing a feature the core distro discarded or added an experimental feature the main line hasn't been able to perfect enough to put into production. And it's common for someone else has to take up the banner to continue producing a library or software the original developer no longer has time or interest in producing. With commercial software however for the most part you're stuck providing a patch file with some hopefully not too complex instructions on how to hack it in.
- the_af 10y ago
  Fully agreed. Maybe I worded my post incorrectly, but for me FOSS is a huge win.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

1. If it's abandonware, then relatively few people are affected. Also, you can always recompile it for your new platform. It's not seamless, but it's much better than an old binary. 2. Most free software is also available on proprietary platforms. Seldom an issue. Some people will say they "cannot" read your .odf document, but if they can't even install LibreOffice, they likely have more urgent problems, such as the crapload of malware that is most likely infesting their computer right now. 4. Don't have any counter-argument. You may be right.