5 ms·

Thank you for confirmin that "Free and Open Source" does not value stability or quality. I'd rather pay for a closed program that comes with guarantees of stab

by hsn915 5y ago

Thank you for confirmin that "Free and Open Source" does not value stability or quality. I'd rather pay for a closed program that comes with guarantees of stability and quality than participate in a community that considers these concerns tertiarty or off the menu entirely.

exyi 5y ago
Often times you can get a support for a stable OSS, and then you actually help the ecosystem by giving it resources
- hsn915 5y ago
  Unfortunately, the "pay for support" business model means the incentive is to make a system that needs support but pretends on the surface to be stable and high quality. One way to make a system so incomprehensible that your customers absolutely need support is to make it configurable in a million different ways, and make the configuration invisible / opaque. Example: "Why is this program doing this when I told it to do that?" Answer: Because this file in that directory configure service A to do X, and this other file in that other directory configures the program to behave like Y if it detects that service A is doing X. But the program does not tell you that via its UI; you have to read obscure documentation.
  - md8z 5y ago
    I don't understand, isn't the original complaint here that everything needs support eventually?
    - hsn915 5y ago
      Everything should not need support. The fact that most everything needs support is a symptom of how crazy the software industry is.
      - md8z 5y ago
        I keep hearing people say that, but how do you propose we write software that has no bugs and does everything perfectly right the first time? That seems impossible.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        The first time? Sure, nothing ever gets it right the first time, but over time software should converge on being bug free and not requiring any support at all. Free-with-paid-support has a perverse incentive against this.
        md8z 5y ago
        "over time software should converge on being bug free" Yeah, and the way that's done is by refactoring things, removing buggy/deprecated things, and not adding any more new features/requirements... So, pick your poison, I guess? I'd love to go move on to the next job as much as the next person, but somebody still has to be paid to do those things. I don't see what the significant difference is there with free-with-paid-support, if you pay for it up front you're still paying the same cost.
        hsn915 5y ago
        All I hear is excuses. I'm not interestd in hearing excuses.
        md8z 5y ago
        That seems dismissive and I don't know why you would be hearing that. If there is a way to do this that you think would not qualify as an excuse, then you should mention it, otherwise both of us are stuck to what we are limited to by these bodies that require rest and sustenance.
        hsn915 5y ago
yoyohello13 5y ago
This is an absurd sweeping generalization. There are many FOSS projects that value stability and quality. Just like there are many closed source projects that don’t.
- hsn915 5y ago
  The only one I'm aware of that does a good job of this is the Go language project, but it's not really your typical FOSS project; it's a Google project, and Google relies on it internally, so the incentive to make it stable and high quality is as high as it will ever get. They don't sell it to others, but they themselves rely on it as a core part of their own business.
  - zufallsheld 5y ago
    When was the last time the Linux kernel or the gnu utils broke for you? For me? Can't remember.
    - tomnipotent 5y ago
      The Linux kernel and many other big FOSS receive a non-trivial number of their contributions from professional programmers on the clock at their day job.
      - comex 5y ago
        What does that have to do with anything?
        tomnipotent 5y ago
        It's not breaking because the contributions are from paid professional developers with commercial priorities and incentives, with internal or external customers often driving those changes. Not unlike Go.
    - hsn915 5y ago

by hsn915 5y ago

exyi 5y ago

Often times you can get a support for a stable OSS, and then you actually help the ecosystem by giving it resources

hsn915 5y ago
Unfortunately, the "pay for support" business model means the incentive is to make a system that needs support but pretends on the surface to be stable and high quality. One way to make a system so incomprehensible that your customers absolutely need support is to make it configurable in a million different ways, and make the configuration invisible / opaque. Example: "Why is this program doing this when I told it to do that?" Answer: Because this file in that directory configure service A to do X, and this other file in that other directory configures the program to behave like Y if it detects that service A is doing X. But the program does not tell you that via its UI; you have to read obscure documentation.
- md8z 5y ago
  I don't understand, isn't the original complaint here that everything needs support eventually?
  - hsn915 5y ago
    Everything should not need support. The fact that most everything needs support is a symptom of how crazy the software industry is.
    - md8z 5y ago
      I keep hearing people say that, but how do you propose we write software that has no bugs and does everything perfectly right the first time? That seems impossible.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        The first time? Sure, nothing ever gets it right the first time, but over time software should converge on being bug free and not requiring any support at all. Free-with-paid-support has a perverse incentive against this.
        md8z 5y ago
        "over time software should converge on being bug free" Yeah, and the way that's done is by refactoring things, removing buggy/deprecated things, and not adding any more new features/requirements... So, pick your poison, I guess? I'd love to go move on to the next job as much as the next person, but somebody still has to be paid to do those things. I don't see what the significant difference is there with free-with-paid-support, if you pay for it up front you're still paying the same cost.
        hsn915 5y ago
        All I hear is excuses. I'm not interestd in hearing excuses.
        md8z 5y ago
        That seems dismissive and I don't know why you would be hearing that. If there is a way to do this that you think would not qualify as an excuse, then you should mention it, otherwise both of us are stuck to what we are limited to by these bodies that require rest and sustenance.
        hsn915 5y ago

yoyohello13 5y ago

This is an absurd sweeping generalization. There are many FOSS projects that value stability and quality. Just like there are many closed source projects that don’t.

hsn915 5y ago
The only one I'm aware of that does a good job of this is the Go language project, but it's not really your typical FOSS project; it's a Google project, and Google relies on it internally, so the incentive to make it stable and high quality is as high as it will ever get. They don't sell it to others, but they themselves rely on it as a core part of their own business.
- zufallsheld 5y ago
  When was the last time the Linux kernel or the gnu utils broke for you? For me? Can't remember.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    The Linux kernel and many other big FOSS receive a non-trivial number of their contributions from professional programmers on the clock at their day job.
    - comex 5y ago
      What does that have to do with anything?
      - tomnipotent 5y ago
        It's not breaking because the contributions are from paid professional developers with commercial priorities and incentives, with internal or external customers often driving those changes. Not unlike Go.
  - hsn915 5y ago