5 ms·

I see what you're saying, but just to be clear I'm using "free" here in the very idiosyncratic way the article does. Things like Red Hat, GitLab, or MongoDB fr

• joe_the_user 5y ago
  1) Most people doing open source don't share the author's definition so this discussion winds-up not being about their 2) Tremendous effort and money goes into making the Linux Kernel secure. The fact that you fail to draw a good line between paid open source and "real" open open is indication that this idiosyncratic definition is fallacious and disingenuous. 3) Which brings me back to what I think the real, reasonable line is. The line is between cheap software, software that involves the minimal effort to squeeze out a feature and a full, carefully secured software process. Open source is virtually irrelevant. If some people didn't volunteer to produce free apps that got duplicated everywhere, you'd have a low-paid smuck doing somewhere, probably producing worse quality. Oppositely, highly secure software should be open source or source-available - the eyes the better. Linux, notably, benefits from many, many people testing it and that benefits the very heavy users of Linux who do employ people developing it. good quality software where people pay for the quality.
  • jaredklewis 5y ago
    I think your points are fine, just orthogonal to the article.