4 ms·
> it's rooted in a basic misconception of what FOSS actually is I don’t think so. It’s rooted in the expectation of open source: that code is provided with the
by ironmagma 4y ago
> it's rooted in a basic misconception of what FOSS actually is
I don’t think so. It’s rooted in the expectation of open source: that code is provided with the intent of being useful. But if you never merge patches, that isn’t very useful. There’s a forking cost and people are aware of it so it’s just natural behavior.
- tracerbulletx 4y agoIf it's not useful why are they using it?
- ironmagma 4y agoLock-in, usually. Using a tool that has it as a dependency. Also, if it's un-useful, they probably won't be using it for much longer since it will likely be forked. But that takes effort, so it's easier to ask for the original dependency to just be updated, especially if the patch has already been submitted (which is like 90%+ of the work).