4 ms·

Hogwash, there is more open source software now then ever before.

by 2trill2spill 9y ago

5ilv3r 9y ago
We have a quality problem, even it there is ample quantity.
- 2trill2spill 9y ago
  Most software, open or closed has quality issues, so while I think your right, I also think that's a separate conversation.
ethanwillis 9y ago
Developers are using open source. End users not so much, except open source bundled into their apps as libraries to actually power them. Getting an app into users hands nowadays is becoming gatekeeped more and more. Either through fearmongering (buy those certs for your apps approved by Gatekeeper X) or literal gatekeeping on app stores. You can argue that people don't have to use locked down app stores, but then you're just missing the point.
- bhhaskin 9y ago
  I couldn't agree more, and on top of that it is getting harder and harder to use open app stores. More and more devices are locked down.
pdonis 9y ago
What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. Also, your software can be as open source as you like, but if it can't interoperate with the rest of the Internet, it's useless. Personally, I don't watch TV or movies on my computer so I don't particularly care whether my browser lets me do that or not. But I would care very much if, for example, my bank's website started requiring a DRM-capable browser. Open source doesn't address that problem.
- no_wizard 9y ago
  Its always been this way. I can't remember a time that open source software was front of mind even for those who Ould have had a vested interest in knowing about beyond computer scientists/engineers or their academic counterparts. There are exceptions, no doubt. I think generally though, this has always been the case. End users in particular usually don't know the difference nor do they care to (though as the allegory goes, sometimes they do when its too late. )
  - jononor 9y ago
    Firefox was for a while. OpenOffice also for a short time (especially in schools), before webby things (Google Docs etc) ate it up.
- movedx 9y ago
  > Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. This is an educational issue at the social level. The technology is still available.
  - tdy721 9y ago
    Exactly, I don't want a password for my online banking, I actually despise the fact that my bank would ever even ask for one. I want a bank where I can deliver an SSH key. The tech is here. It's been here all along.
    - bhhaskin 9y ago
      That would be pretty amazing.
- 2trill2spill 9y ago
  > What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. The people who care about the "Open Web" and DRM know about open source software and the people who don't care, don't know about Open Source software precisely because they don't care. > if, for example, my bank's website started requiring a DRM-capable browser. Open source doesn't address that problem. That's the banks property (website, servers, etc) you have no say in how they run it, if they go and do something stupid like require DRM to visit their site and you don't want DRM you have to switch banks. You made the choice to not use DRM, so you have to face the consequences of your choice. The bank made the choice of requiring DRM and they have to live with the consequences of customers switching banks. Open Source software was never meant to control others property.
davexunit 9y ago
Yet users are less free now than ever before. The open source methodology leads to free libraries for devs, free labor for companies, but proprietary applications for users.
syshum 9y ago
Is there though? There are more open source libraries, tools, frameworks, languages and other tools used to create software But I am seeing a HUGE shift to Closed off, non open SaaS and property installed apps for end users. Outside of dev tools I am not seeing a shift to open source. GPL a licence that protects user freedom has fallen out of favor in place of MIT and BSD which protects developer freedom So like EME, Open Source has become hostile users. Open Source is for dev's not users
- rimliu 9y ago
  > Outside of dev tools I am not seeing a shift to open > source. Because very few open source authors understand end users which are not developers. And comments here prove that.

Hogwash, there is more open source software now then ever before.

5ilv3r 9y ago

We have a quality problem, even it there is ample quantity.

2trill2spill 9y ago
Most software, open or closed has quality issues, so while I think your right, I also think that's a separate conversation.

ethanwillis 9y ago

Developers are using open source. End users not so much, except open source bundled into their apps as libraries to actually power them. Getting an app into users hands nowadays is becoming gatekeeped more and more. Either through fearmongering (buy those certs for your apps approved by Gatekeeper X) or literal gatekeeping on app stores. You can argue that people don't have to use locked down app stores, but then you're just missing the point.

bhhaskin 9y ago
I couldn't agree more, and on top of that it is getting harder and harder to use open app stores. More and more devices are locked down.

pdonis 9y ago

What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. Also, your software can be as open source as you like, but if it can't interoperate with the rest of the Internet, it's useless. Personally, I don't watch TV or movies on my computer so I don't particularly care whether my browser lets me do that or not. But I would care very much if, for example, my bank's website started requiring a DRM-capable browser. Open source doesn't address that problem.

no_wizard 9y ago
Its always been this way. I can't remember a time that open source software was front of mind even for those who Ould have had a vested interest in knowing about beyond computer scientists/engineers or their academic counterparts. There are exceptions, no doubt. I think generally though, this has always been the case. End users in particular usually don't know the difference nor do they care to (though as the allegory goes, sometimes they do when its too late. )
- jononor 9y ago
  Firefox was for a while. OpenOffice also for a short time (especially in schools), before webby things (Google Docs etc) ate it up.
movedx 9y ago
> Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. This is an educational issue at the social level. The technology is still available.
- tdy721 9y ago
  Exactly, I don't want a password for my online banking, I actually despise the fact that my bank would ever even ask for one. I want a bank where I can deliver an SSH key. The tech is here. It's been here all along.
  - bhhaskin 9y ago
    That would be pretty amazing.
2trill2spill 9y ago
> What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. The people who care about the "Open Web" and DRM know about open source software and the people who don't care, don't know about Open Source software precisely because they don't care. > if, for example, my bank's website started requiring a DRM-capable browser. Open source doesn't address that problem. That's the banks property (website, servers, etc) you have no say in how they run it, if they go and do something stupid like require DRM to visit their site and you don't want DRM you have to switch banks. You made the choice to not use DRM, so you have to face the consequences of your choice. The bank made the choice of requiring DRM and they have to live with the consequences of customers switching banks. Open Source software was never meant to control others property.

davexunit 9y ago

Yet users are less free now than ever before. The open source methodology leads to free libraries for devs, free labor for companies, but proprietary applications for users.

syshum 9y ago

Is there though? There are more open source libraries, tools, frameworks, languages and other tools used to create software But I am seeing a HUGE shift to Closed off, non open SaaS and property installed apps for end users. Outside of dev tools I am not seeing a shift to open source. GPL a licence that protects user freedom has fallen out of favor in place of MIT and BSD which protects developer freedom So like EME, Open Source has become hostile users. Open Source is for dev's not users

rimliu 9y ago
> Outside of dev tools I am not seeing a shift to open > source. Because very few open source authors understand end users which are not developers. And comments here prove that.