6 ms·

There is so much "Stallman was right" in all of these examples... non-free software always manages to eventually sneak in malicious anti-user features, where th

There is so much "Stallman was right" in all of these examples... non-free software always manages to eventually sneak in malicious anti-user features, where the user has no recourse. At least with free software there's always the fundamental freedom to fork. You think systemd is a Red Hat plot to destroy Linux, then go use Devuan. You don't trust what Google could be doing with Chrome, take your pick of alternatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Community_packages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Communi... Plus, people tend to act more morally when they think they might be watched, whether they actually are watched or not. Whenever someone refuses to show source code I always think, "what are you hiding in there?" There's usually something.

Nomentatus 9y ago
The privilege of copyright must come with disclosure.
computator 9y ago
> Whenever someone refuses to show source code I always think, "what are you hiding in there?" There's usually something. There's a dilemma that developers face when deciding to release source code that's bigger than fear of software theft or the desire to hide something evil in the code. It's a fear of being scrutinized, ridiculed, or humiliated over the quality of their code. Imagine 2 programs that do something useful and are functionally equivalent. Program A is closed source. Program B has source code available for inspection. Suppose on inspection, program B's code turns out to be bloated, ugly, poorly organized, and with many potential bugs or defects. B's reputation is screwed. However, for all you know, A's code is just as bad or worse. But you don't know for sure. Bloggers and reviewers will write that no source is available for A. Bloggers and reviewers will write that program B's code sucks. The consumer reads that "program A doesn't give you source code" and that "program B's code is garbage", but are otherwise functionally equivalent. Which do you think will have greater influence on most consumers and their purchasing decision? That's one major reason why more developers don't release source code. I wish I knew a way out of this dilemma.
- daurnimator 9y ago
  The way out is to assume the worst: if no source is available, then assume they're hiding it due to it being "bloated, ugly, poorly organized, and with many potential bugs or defects".
  - ianai 9y ago
    As someone whose deployed and supported lots of enterprise software and hardware, that's got to be absolutely correct.
- executesorder66 9y ago
  The project with open source code can be improved by anyone. The project with closed source code can remain terrible forever even if there are programmers willing to improve it. Here's an example: Looking for a WebExtention alternative to greasemonkey on Firefox. (I know a port is being worked on, but let's ignore that for now) Your options are tampermonkey (closed source), and violentmonkey (open source) Tampermonkey has been around longer, and probably has more features. Which do I choose? I choose violentmonkey, because for all I know tampermonkey's code is garbage, and full of spyware. If violentmonkey doesn't meet my requirements, I can make it meet my requirements by coding the feature myself, or paying someone to add the feature.
  - ConfucianNardin 9y ago
    And here I thought Tampermonkey was open source, but apparently they went closed since I started using it...
    - majewsky 9y ago
      Yeah, thanks for calling that out. I removed it just now.
- jcbrand 9y ago
  I'm skeptical that this is actually as big a reason people don't want to open-source their code as you assume. In any case, there are good solutions for it. Firstly, if you know from the start that you're going to open source the code, then you'll make more of an effort than (perhaps) usual to ensure that the code is well-organised, well-tested and elegant. At least within your current level of competence, but that's all anyone can hope to do in any case. Some humility is also required in my opinion. I know many people subscribe to a fake-it-until-you-make-it philosophy, and there's some value in that, but when it comes to open sourcing your code, it's good to check your ego and to be open to suggestions and criticism. There will always be people who are more knowledgeable and better than you at certain things. Best IMO is to accept this (and their criticism if you're lucky enough to receive it) and to see you how can learn from them and improve. BTW, I speak from some experience. I have had some nominally embarrassing experiences with OSS where other people highlighted relatively obvious security issues with code that I wrote and which I thought was of high quality. However, in turn I got free QA from knowledgeable people and in the process the code improved further as I fixed the problems. Also, as some people have mentioned already. OSS that is popular gets improved all the time. I.e. if you're lucky, and your code doesn't languish in obscurity, then you'll get patches and pull requests to improve your code. So the way out of the dilemma... if you're really just being held back because you fear criticism and ridicule, is to ignore the fear, be humble, and to still open-source (perhaps after doing some cleanup, but not to the extent that you use it as a crutch to avoid open-sourcing). You'll probably realize that the fear was totally unfounded or in the least exaggerated.
eksemplar 9y ago
Free software wouldn't protect you in a lot of these cases though. Fuel pumps could run on free software, but since you didn't install it, it could've been easily altered by the people who did. Hell these days, you'd have to build the hardware yourself to make sure someone didn't put something malicious in it.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  But all of those systems get a lot of easier to access and be checked by controllers, if their base is open and not just some binary blob. Of course that applies also to the hardware.
raghava 9y ago
> think systemd is a Red Hat plot to destroy Linux, then go use Devuan This was the first thing that came to my mind as well, after reading the post! > people tend to act more morally when they think they might be watched, > Whenever someone refuses to show source code I always think, "what are you hiding in there?" There's usually something. This goes further to all the bias perpetuation engines that the players (size immaterial!) from our software industry are peddling around as a silver bullet. No one know how the blackboxes are built, what biases were built in (unknowingly, or worse, knowingly!), what tests are done and data used etc. This thread on twitter https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/901851127624458240 https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/901851127624458240 , when read with Cory Doctorow's post in context highlights the dangers that are looming just ahead which might go totally unnoticed due to the noise in the system, shrouded by short-term gains but the bad effects which would be visible only in long term.
bitL 9y ago
> Whenever someone refuses to show source code I always think, "what are you hiding in there?" I think it's mainly just laziness, most devs don't want to be always under review and can live easier lives if they can allow themselves a bit of a mess in their own projects without consistenly dealing with complaints. And many open source users are super obnoxious, bombarding devs with insane questions/requests all the time, then acting super hostile when they don't get what they want right away.
- majewsky 9y ago
  > And many open source users are super obnoxious, bombarding devs with insane questions/requests all the time, then acting super hostile when they don't get what they want right away. As if this were any different for users of closed-source apps.

Nomentatus 9y ago

The privilege of copyright must come with disclosure.

computator 9y ago

> Whenever someone refuses to show source code I always think, "what are you hiding in there?" There's usually something. There's a dilemma that developers face when deciding to release source code that's bigger than fear of software theft or the desire to hide something evil in the code. It's a fear of being scrutinized, ridiculed, or humiliated over the quality of their code. Imagine 2 programs that do something useful and are functionally equivalent. Program A is closed source. Program B has source code available for inspection. Suppose on inspection, program B's code turns out to be bloated, ugly, poorly organized, and with many potential bugs or defects. B's reputation is screwed. However, for all you know, A's code is just as bad or worse. But you don't know for sure. Bloggers and reviewers will write that no source is available for A. Bloggers and reviewers will write that program B's code sucks. The consumer reads that "program A doesn't give you source code" and that "program B's code is garbage", but are otherwise functionally equivalent. Which do you think will have greater influence on most consumers and their purchasing decision? That's one major reason why more developers don't release source code. I wish I knew a way out of this dilemma.

daurnimator 9y ago
The way out is to assume the worst: if no source is available, then assume they're hiding it due to it being "bloated, ugly, poorly organized, and with many potential bugs or defects".
- ianai 9y ago
  As someone whose deployed and supported lots of enterprise software and hardware, that's got to be absolutely correct.
executesorder66 9y ago
The project with open source code can be improved by anyone. The project with closed source code can remain terrible forever even if there are programmers willing to improve it. Here's an example: Looking for a WebExtention alternative to greasemonkey on Firefox. (I know a port is being worked on, but let's ignore that for now) Your options are tampermonkey (closed source), and violentmonkey (open source) Tampermonkey has been around longer, and probably has more features. Which do I choose? I choose violentmonkey, because for all I know tampermonkey's code is garbage, and full of spyware. If violentmonkey doesn't meet my requirements, I can make it meet my requirements by coding the feature myself, or paying someone to add the feature.
- ConfucianNardin 9y ago
  And here I thought Tampermonkey was open source, but apparently they went closed since I started using it...
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Yeah, thanks for calling that out. I removed it just now.
jcbrand 9y ago
I'm skeptical that this is actually as big a reason people don't want to open-source their code as you assume. In any case, there are good solutions for it. Firstly, if you know from the start that you're going to open source the code, then you'll make more of an effort than (perhaps) usual to ensure that the code is well-organised, well-tested and elegant. At least within your current level of competence, but that's all anyone can hope to do in any case. Some humility is also required in my opinion. I know many people subscribe to a fake-it-until-you-make-it philosophy, and there's some value in that, but when it comes to open sourcing your code, it's good to check your ego and to be open to suggestions and criticism. There will always be people who are more knowledgeable and better than you at certain things. Best IMO is to accept this (and their criticism if you're lucky enough to receive it) and to see you how can learn from them and improve. BTW, I speak from some experience. I have had some nominally embarrassing experiences with OSS where other people highlighted relatively obvious security issues with code that I wrote and which I thought was of high quality. However, in turn I got free QA from knowledgeable people and in the process the code improved further as I fixed the problems. Also, as some people have mentioned already. OSS that is popular gets improved all the time. I.e. if you're lucky, and your code doesn't languish in obscurity, then you'll get patches and pull requests to improve your code. So the way out of the dilemma... if you're really just being held back because you fear criticism and ridicule, is to ignore the fear, be humble, and to still open-source (perhaps after doing some cleanup, but not to the extent that you use it as a crutch to avoid open-sourcing). You'll probably realize that the fear was totally unfounded or in the least exaggerated.

eksemplar 9y ago

Free software wouldn't protect you in a lot of these cases though. Fuel pumps could run on free software, but since you didn't install it, it could've been easily altered by the people who did. Hell these days, you'd have to build the hardware yourself to make sure someone didn't put something malicious in it.

hutzlibu 9y ago
But all of those systems get a lot of easier to access and be checked by controllers, if their base is open and not just some binary blob. Of course that applies also to the hardware.

raghava 9y ago

> think systemd is a Red Hat plot to destroy Linux, then go use Devuan This was the first thing that came to my mind as well, after reading the post! > people tend to act more morally when they think they might be watched, > Whenever someone refuses to show source code I always think, "what are you hiding in there?" There's usually something. This goes further to all the bias perpetuation engines that the players (size immaterial!) from our software industry are peddling around as a silver bullet. No one know how the blackboxes are built, what biases were built in (unknowingly, or worse, knowingly!), what tests are done and data used etc. This thread on twitter https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/901851127624458240 https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/901851127624458240 , when read with Cory Doctorow's post in context highlights the dangers that are looming just ahead which might go totally unnoticed due to the noise in the system, shrouded by short-term gains but the bad effects which would be visible only in long term.

bitL 9y ago

> Whenever someone refuses to show source code I always think, "what are you hiding in there?" I think it's mainly just laziness, most devs don't want to be always under review and can live easier lives if they can allow themselves a bit of a mess in their own projects without consistenly dealing with complaints. And many open source users are super obnoxious, bombarding devs with insane questions/requests all the time, then acting super hostile when they don't get what they want right away.

majewsky 9y ago
> And many open source users are super obnoxious, bombarding devs with insane questions/requests all the time, then acting super hostile when they don't get what they want right away. As if this were any different for users of closed-source apps.