3 ms·

> The license is the strongest argument to not use RAR. Why? Most of the daily tools that keep business world running are closed source. Excel. Or Photoshop. O

> The license is the strongest argument to not use RAR. Why? Most of the daily tools that keep business world running are closed source. Excel. Or Photoshop. Or Windows/MacOS itself. But RAR license and not being open source is now pushing it too far? Really?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Its okay to have some business spesific software be closed source, say Excell. But an archive is needed every time you download a collection of files from a government website, or make GDPR request for your data to google. So by choosing RAR you would be forcing millions of people, maybe entire country to use that company's product and giving them power. Is there any good reason for that?
- vetinari 5y ago
  And what's the difference compared to forcing docx/xlsx or psd? The network effects affect every exchange, not just archives.
  - klez 5y ago
    docx/xslx are open formats. About psd, yes, that's proprietary. What government agency mandates its use for the public to interact with them? (genuinely asking, not being snarky)
    - vetinari 5y ago
      > docx/xslx are open formats. In theory, yes. In practice, you will see files in transitional schema in the wild and you need MS Office to work with them, unless they are not just a very basic document. (I had a similar case in the past, the document contained forms, and it would not render properly even with MS Office for Mac available at the time). > About psd, yes, that's proprietary. What government agency mandates its use for the public to interact with them? (genuinely asking, not being snarky) Not aware of G2C, but in other scenarios, it happens. In our country, public administration is not allowed to use rar either. Only zip, tar, gz, and tar.gz. Despite that, I did receive a rar once; also an Outlook .msg file. Rar was not really a problem, and .msg was solved by communicating with the other side (Mac Outlook cannot open them).
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    If a government forces it's people to use particular software, it has a duty to provide that software to the entire population. If a parliament decides to pay $X billion to Microsoft, for a lisence for all of UK, well, that sucks, but they can fight over it like they do with all other random spending they do. If it's not willing to pay the cost, it is basically creating a monopoly for that firm, and I have to pay for it. The potential for lobbying and corruption is off the scale here.
    - vetinari 5y ago
      I see where you come from, and in principle agree with you, but it is not how the real world works. For an extreme example, see South Korea and their ActiveX problem.
FeepingCreature 5y ago
No, those are also bad - but harder to displace.
xtracto 5y ago
The same people that moan about some software being closed source will come back later crying because said software became a SaaS internet business with monthly fees... There's nothing wrong with closed source for profit software. I'll never understand why people in this field push to discredit a honest way to earn money from the work they do... It's as if Medics would cry because other medics are charging them for a medical visit. Dirty medics trying to profit from their knowledge and time!!
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > It's as if Medics would cry because other medics are charging them for a medical visit. Dirty medics trying to profit from their knowledge and time!! No, it's as if one medic told another medic "you're not allowed to use any knowledge you got from my visit to help your patients unless you pay me".
- gompertz 5y ago
  I'll be the one to say it: because a large majority of programmers are liberals, democrats, and anti-capitalist. And they feel everyone else should be too.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > The same people that moan about some software being closed source will come back later crying because said software became a SaaS internet business with monthly fees... You're saying that in a "Gotcha!" tone, as if you've caught these people out in an inconsistency. You haven't; there is no such inconsistency. Closed source can be bad even if SaaS is even worse.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Its okay to have some business spesific software be closed source, say Excell. But an archive is needed every time you download a collection of files from a government website, or make GDPR request for your data to google. So by choosing RAR you would be forcing millions of people, maybe entire country to use that company's product and giving them power. Is there any good reason for that?

vetinari 5y ago
And what's the difference compared to forcing docx/xlsx or psd? The network effects affect every exchange, not just archives.
- klez 5y ago
  docx/xslx are open formats. About psd, yes, that's proprietary. What government agency mandates its use for the public to interact with them? (genuinely asking, not being snarky)
  - vetinari 5y ago
    > docx/xslx are open formats. In theory, yes. In practice, you will see files in transitional schema in the wild and you need MS Office to work with them, unless they are not just a very basic document. (I had a similar case in the past, the document contained forms, and it would not render properly even with MS Office for Mac available at the time). > About psd, yes, that's proprietary. What government agency mandates its use for the public to interact with them? (genuinely asking, not being snarky) Not aware of G2C, but in other scenarios, it happens. In our country, public administration is not allowed to use rar either. Only zip, tar, gz, and tar.gz. Despite that, I did receive a rar once; also an Outlook .msg file. Rar was not really a problem, and .msg was solved by communicating with the other side (Mac Outlook cannot open them).
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  If a government forces it's people to use particular software, it has a duty to provide that software to the entire population. If a parliament decides to pay $X billion to Microsoft, for a lisence for all of UK, well, that sucks, but they can fight over it like they do with all other random spending they do. If it's not willing to pay the cost, it is basically creating a monopoly for that firm, and I have to pay for it. The potential for lobbying and corruption is off the scale here.
  - vetinari 5y ago
    I see where you come from, and in principle agree with you, but it is not how the real world works. For an extreme example, see South Korea and their ActiveX problem.

FeepingCreature 5y ago

No, those are also bad - but harder to displace.

xtracto 5y ago

The same people that moan about some software being closed source will come back later crying because said software became a SaaS internet business with monthly fees... There's nothing wrong with closed source for profit software. I'll never understand why people in this field push to discredit a honest way to earn money from the work they do... It's as if Medics would cry because other medics are charging them for a medical visit. Dirty medics trying to profit from their knowledge and time!!

josephcsible 5y ago
> It's as if Medics would cry because other medics are charging them for a medical visit. Dirty medics trying to profit from their knowledge and time!! No, it's as if one medic told another medic "you're not allowed to use any knowledge you got from my visit to help your patients unless you pay me".
gompertz 5y ago
I'll be the one to say it: because a large majority of programmers are liberals, democrats, and anti-capitalist. And they feel everyone else should be too.
CRConrad 5y ago
> The same people that moan about some software being closed source will come back later crying because said software became a SaaS internet business with monthly fees... You're saying that in a "Gotcha!" tone, as if you've caught these people out in an inconsistency. You haven't; there is no such inconsistency. Closed source can be bad even if SaaS is even worse.