4 ms·

> 3. As extensible as possible. The app would need to be open source for this to be possible. It's still possible to make money with an open-source product. W

> 3. As extensible as possible. The app would need to be open source for this to be possible. It's still possible to make money with an open-source product. When you're targeting a developer audience, it might even be more profitable to be open-source.

woodrowbarlow 6y ago
proprietary software can totally be extensible, that's what plugin APIs are for. foss is cool and all, but i don't buy the implication that it's some sort of civic duty for developers to release under a foss license.
- douglaswlance 6y ago
  Is an open-source piece of software more extensible than closed-source? If so, then if the goal is to maximize extensibility, then open-source is required.
  - cecja 6y ago
    it's not as black and white as you want to paint it.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    Open source software is readily and legally user modifiable. It is often (but not always) readily extensible - it can actually be quite difficult to extend in some cases. (There's plenty of difficult to work with spaghetti on GitHub.) Source available proprietary software is readily inspectable, but often not legal to modify (at least not for free). It might still be extensible (ex plugins) though! Closed source proprietary software is difficult to inspect, difficult to modify, and generally illegal to modify (for most use cases, in most jurisdictions). As above, it could easily be extensible though.
  - woodrowbarlow 6y ago
    obviously the "as possible" is qualified. setting that aside, though, the best way to make software (open- or closed-source) extensible is via a plugin API. without it, the only way for end users to extend open-source software is to fork and maintain the fork forever, or attempt to merge upstream. so one might argue that the quality of the plugin API (and its documentation) is the primary measure of a software's "extensibility".
  - fsloth 6y ago
    Hardly. Extending a piece of software requires generally extensive familiarization with the codebase, possibly ranging into millions of lines. On the other hand, a well documented plugin or scripting system, which sits on top of the existing domain logic and is well documented and full of examples, generally is an excellent way to allow extending the base app. The base app can be open or closed source. Without scripting or plugin system it's still a black box for most intents (as the time needed to study and change it would likely be too much).
    - douglaswlance 6y ago
      A piece of software being open-source does not preclude it from also having a plugin or scripting system.
      - fsloth 6y ago
        Sure! But the question was "is an open source software more extensible...". And for most situations where software is used the answer is no.
        douglaswlance 6y ago
        If being open-source improves extensibility by even 0.0000001%, then to make something as extensible as possible requires it to be open-source. As someone who writes plugins, being able to see "behind the curtain" is very helpful, especially for taking advantage of un-documented features.
        woodrowbarlow 6y ago
        someone created something that they'd like to make a little money off of, while still taking very extensive steps to make it available, extensible, and prevent lock in. they chose a path to profit with all of these goals in mind. you're demanding an awful lot for something that "improves extensibility by even 0.0000001%". in the spectrum between "i want to extract money from the users of this product" and "i want this product to be used as the users see fit", i would say this product's goals lean towards the latter. please don't say the wording is the problem. "as extensible as possible" is fine. "as possible" is a qualifier, it clearly means "as extensible as possible without undermining other goals". you're pretending that they've promised to make it extensible at the expense of _everything_ else, and that assumption in context in unfounded. it's true that paths to monetization exist for open source software, but they usually aren't accessible to an individual developer who is building a small bootstrapped side-project to generate small amounts of passive income.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
neop1x 6y ago
Hah, is it not opensource? If it really is closed then it's useless, not worth discussing. Then it's funny they maket it as being better than clouds, that clouds shuts down, change owners or policies. With closed source software they will be able to do the same. Yes, markdown is plain text but as more and more additional features would be used, one would get more vendor locked-in to this software. And then what - write an opensource alternative with all the features from scratch again. Clouds at least give online sync...

woodrowbarlow 6y ago

proprietary software can totally be extensible, that's what plugin APIs are for. foss is cool and all, but i don't buy the implication that it's some sort of civic duty for developers to release under a foss license.

douglaswlance 6y ago
Is an open-source piece of software more extensible than closed-source? If so, then if the goal is to maximize extensibility, then open-source is required.
- cecja 6y ago
  it's not as black and white as you want to paint it.
- Reelin 6y ago
  Open source software is readily and legally user modifiable. It is often (but not always) readily extensible - it can actually be quite difficult to extend in some cases. (There's plenty of difficult to work with spaghetti on GitHub.) Source available proprietary software is readily inspectable, but often not legal to modify (at least not for free). It might still be extensible (ex plugins) though! Closed source proprietary software is difficult to inspect, difficult to modify, and generally illegal to modify (for most use cases, in most jurisdictions). As above, it could easily be extensible though.
- woodrowbarlow 6y ago
  obviously the "as possible" is qualified. setting that aside, though, the best way to make software (open- or closed-source) extensible is via a plugin API. without it, the only way for end users to extend open-source software is to fork and maintain the fork forever, or attempt to merge upstream. so one might argue that the quality of the plugin API (and its documentation) is the primary measure of a software's "extensibility".
- fsloth 6y ago
  Hardly. Extending a piece of software requires generally extensive familiarization with the codebase, possibly ranging into millions of lines. On the other hand, a well documented plugin or scripting system, which sits on top of the existing domain logic and is well documented and full of examples, generally is an excellent way to allow extending the base app. The base app can be open or closed source. Without scripting or plugin system it's still a black box for most intents (as the time needed to study and change it would likely be too much).
  - douglaswlance 6y ago
    A piece of software being open-source does not preclude it from also having a plugin or scripting system.
    - fsloth 6y ago
      Sure! But the question was "is an open source software more extensible...". And for most situations where software is used the answer is no.
      - douglaswlance 6y ago
        If being open-source improves extensibility by even 0.0000001%, then to make something as extensible as possible requires it to be open-source. As someone who writes plugins, being able to see "behind the curtain" is very helpful, especially for taking advantage of un-documented features.
        woodrowbarlow 6y ago
        someone created something that they'd like to make a little money off of, while still taking very extensive steps to make it available, extensible, and prevent lock in. they chose a path to profit with all of these goals in mind. you're demanding an awful lot for something that "improves extensibility by even 0.0000001%". in the spectrum between "i want to extract money from the users of this product" and "i want this product to be used as the users see fit", i would say this product's goals lean towards the latter. please don't say the wording is the problem. "as extensible as possible" is fine. "as possible" is a qualifier, it clearly means "as extensible as possible without undermining other goals". you're pretending that they've promised to make it extensible at the expense of _everything_ else, and that assumption in context in unfounded. it's true that paths to monetization exist for open source software, but they usually aren't accessible to an individual developer who is building a small bootstrapped side-project to generate small amounts of passive income.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

neop1x 6y ago

Hah, is it not opensource? If it really is closed then it's useless, not worth discussing. Then it's funny they maket it as being better than clouds, that clouds shuts down, change owners or policies. With closed source software they will be able to do the same. Yes, markdown is plain text but as more and more additional features would be used, one would get more vendor locked-in to this software. And then what - write an opensource alternative with all the features from scratch again. Clouds at least give online sync...