24 ms·

> discontinued: Atom just got discontinued. It's open source. Photoshop on the other hand has withstood the test of time. But if I want to use Atom I can fork

> discontinued: Atom just got discontinued. It's open source. Photoshop on the other hand has withstood the test of time. But if I want to use Atom I can fork it, or keep the source around. It doesn't go away from my environment until _I_ say it does. And Photoshop has become more and more user hostile over time. > Audacity's 3.0 update removed a feature I relied on. I wasn't forced to update to it, sure, but proprietary software doesn't force updates either. It is impossible for libre software to force updates, and quite possible for proprietary software to do so. It's part of what pushed me away from Windows in the first place, and other apps (especially web, but also other stuff) also do so. > Being able to fix your own bugs is a great part of open source! But not something most professional software developers really expect to do for their IDE. While it isn't expected, it's definitely a nice-to-have. > open source formats are probably more resilient than closed source, but I would argue many proprietary formats are also pretty resilient. Code is also based on plain text at it's core, like latex, so it's always going to be pretty resilient. But with libre software, I don't have to wonder. Even if a project uses an obtuse, obfuscated binary format I know I'll still be able to read it (with a little prep work). With code this is less of an issue - as you note - but you did mention Photoshop earlier, so I'm assuming we're talking about software in general. > you'll never have a guarantee that a tool you invest time in or money in will be the leading tool in five years. I don't need it to he leading, I need it to be around and functional. Pretty confident Emacs/(n)vim will be here a couple decades longer at least. I believe this was GP's point - that it's better to worry about what will work best in 10 years, not what's standard now.

imwillofficial 4y ago
“It is impossible for libre software to force updates” This isn’t even close to being true
- netr0ute 4y ago
  Any evidence to back that up?
  - terhechte 4y ago
    I think Gnome / GTK is a good example. Famously, the Budgie Desktop Environment will have to be rewritten on top of Enlightenment because they don't like the GTK 4 changes. So now they're forced to go to a different widget system. [1] [1] https://joshuastrobl.com/2021/09/14/building-an-alternative-ecosystem/ https://joshuastrobl.com/2021/09/14/building-an-alternative-...
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      Its a technical decision. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.
    - lal 4y ago
      Sure, that's a good example of something else, but do you have any examples of any forced updates?
    - freedomben 4y ago
      Your use of "forced" is interesting, because to me that doesn't sound like "force" at all, rather a "we don't like this thing so we're moving" which is a free choice for technical reasons. Force to me is like what Amazon does with kindles. If it connects to the internet, it will update to the latest version whether you want it to or not. If you don't connect it to the internet, you can't use it.
- hansvm 4y ago
  If it did you'd just build a version with the offensive code removed?
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    Ah yes. I have the time and the knowledge to "just" remove that code and "just" build that version. When even the simplest libraries can't usually be built using the instructions the authors leave for them (if they even do that)
    - freedomben 4y ago
      You don't have to remove the code, you can just pin the version you're using and go for quite some time (sensitive to security context). Most builds are pretty easy to do with 5 minutes of following instructions or whatever build tool. I did this exactly thing with termux (an app I relied on) when they removed sending sms due to a google rule change. Also, you only have to do it if you're the only one left. Chances are very good that there are others in the community that may step up wholly or in part. Sure the risk is non-zero, but the point of freedom is that you could if it came to that.
    - wiseowise 4y ago
      Maybe you don't, but somebody else does.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    If you have the skills. The large majority of humanity does not
    - wiseowise 4y ago
      That's like saying that hardware should be only repairable by vendor because majority of humanity doesn't have skills to fix it themselves.
      - Raymonf 4y ago
mbesto 4y ago
> But if I want to use Atom I can fork it, or keep the source around. It doesn't go away from my environment until _I_ say it does. This is technically true, but in 99% of the cases is not realistically true. Most developers who use said FOSS external dependency do not want to actively maintain it themselves.
- bmitc 4y ago
  FOSS supporters always say this as if we live in a reality where knowledge and time are infinite. Yes, the licenses say you can legally do things, but they are hardly ever realistic.
  - frazbin 4y ago
    Well, you don't do the maintenance yourself, you get some bored person to do it-- the important thing is they're not on a payroll and the result isn't someone's IP. Right now this strategy probably seems insane, because we are all so well compensated that the opportunity cost of working on OSS for free is massive, but sometimes you get 'lucky' and a software downturn frees up some engineering hours for further pro bono work on OSS. Pretty sure that has happened several times already, might happen again soon.
- varajelle 4y ago
  For the atom case, it seems some users are going to continue to maintain it: https://github.com/atom-community/atom/ https://github.com/atom-community/atom/
  - mekster 4y ago
    Might be more interesting to follow the next editor the author is working on. https://zed.dev/ https://zed.dev/

imwillofficial 4y ago

“It is impossible for libre software to force updates” This isn’t even close to being true

netr0ute 4y ago
Any evidence to back that up?
- terhechte 4y ago
  I think Gnome / GTK is a good example. Famously, the Budgie Desktop Environment will have to be rewritten on top of Enlightenment because they don't like the GTK 4 changes. So now they're forced to go to a different widget system. [1] [1] https://joshuastrobl.com/2021/09/14/building-an-alternative-ecosystem/ https://joshuastrobl.com/2021/09/14/building-an-alternative-...
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Its a technical decision. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.
  - lal 4y ago
    Sure, that's a good example of something else, but do you have any examples of any forced updates?
  - freedomben 4y ago
    Your use of "forced" is interesting, because to me that doesn't sound like "force" at all, rather a "we don't like this thing so we're moving" which is a free choice for technical reasons. Force to me is like what Amazon does with kindles. If it connects to the internet, it will update to the latest version whether you want it to or not. If you don't connect it to the internet, you can't use it.
hansvm 4y ago
If it did you'd just build a version with the offensive code removed?
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Ah yes. I have the time and the knowledge to "just" remove that code and "just" build that version. When even the simplest libraries can't usually be built using the instructions the authors leave for them (if they even do that)
  - freedomben 4y ago
    You don't have to remove the code, you can just pin the version you're using and go for quite some time (sensitive to security context). Most builds are pretty easy to do with 5 minutes of following instructions or whatever build tool. I did this exactly thing with termux (an app I relied on) when they removed sending sms due to a google rule change. Also, you only have to do it if you're the only one left. Chances are very good that there are others in the community that may step up wholly or in part. Sure the risk is non-zero, but the point of freedom is that you could if it came to that.
  - wiseowise 4y ago
    Maybe you don't, but somebody else does.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  If you have the skills. The large majority of humanity does not
  - wiseowise 4y ago
    That's like saying that hardware should be only repairable by vendor because majority of humanity doesn't have skills to fix it themselves.
    - Raymonf 4y ago

mbesto 4y ago

> But if I want to use Atom I can fork it, or keep the source around. It doesn't go away from my environment until _I_ say it does. This is technically true, but in 99% of the cases is not realistically true. Most developers who use said FOSS external dependency do not want to actively maintain it themselves.

bmitc 4y ago
FOSS supporters always say this as if we live in a reality where knowledge and time are infinite. Yes, the licenses say you can legally do things, but they are hardly ever realistic.
- frazbin 4y ago
  Well, you don't do the maintenance yourself, you get some bored person to do it-- the important thing is they're not on a payroll and the result isn't someone's IP. Right now this strategy probably seems insane, because we are all so well compensated that the opportunity cost of working on OSS for free is massive, but sometimes you get 'lucky' and a software downturn frees up some engineering hours for further pro bono work on OSS. Pretty sure that has happened several times already, might happen again soon.
varajelle 4y ago
For the atom case, it seems some users are going to continue to maintain it: https://github.com/atom-community/atom/ https://github.com/atom-community/atom/
- mekster 4y ago
  Might be more interesting to follow the next editor the author is working on. https://zed.dev/ https://zed.dev/