3 ms·

Except it's not actually true. Build issues are mostly a solved problem with reproducible build systems, like Nix and Docker to an extent. If a project is not u

by imiric 4y ago

Except it's not actually true. Build issues are mostly a solved problem with reproducible build systems, like Nix and Docker to an extent. If a project is not using this, kindly suggest it to its authors, or, you know, propose the change yourself. The lack of documentation is also a problem with specific projects only, not a widespread F/LOSS issue. And again, if the project lacks in this area, you have the means to improve it. As for projects being difficult for newcomers; yes, this is an issue. But it's one you'll also encounter when approaching _any_ codebase, where you'll find it takes time and effort to understand and contribute a meaningful change. If you're not a programmer experienced in a particular tech stack, then it's obvious the barrier to entry will be even higher. None of these issues are specific to F/LOSS, so the post reads like a rant from an entitled user. The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays. And another benefit of F/LOSS: just because a project is inaccessible to person A, person B might find it easy to contribute, which encourages a community to exist, from which everyone ultimately benefits.

zen21 4y ago
> None of these issues are specific to F/LOSS, so the post reads like a rant from an entitled user. > The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays. By this logic, FOSS is always impervious to criticism because non FOSS is worse. That’s not an argument against the premise of the article.
- imiric 4y ago
  No, that's not what I'm saying. But the article criticizes general issues of _any_ software project. Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to F/LOSS, and for that reason "source code is not enough". F/LOSS projects have plenty to criticize, like any other project. The major difference is that they provide more freedoms, where these issues can be fixed by external contributors. Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.
  - zen21 4y ago
    > Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to FOSS This is just not a logical reading of his argument. He is saying FOSS is necessary but not sufficient. His argument can clearly only apply to FOSS and doesn’t apply to other kinds of software. > Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point. Except that’s not what he’s saying. You are responding to the title of the piece but not that argument it makes. He’s saying FOSS is not enough to empower people in general to hack on software and bend it to their will. It’s not clear what you mean by ‘entitled’ in this context.

by imiric 4y ago

zen21 4y ago

> None of these issues are specific to F/LOSS, so the post reads like a rant from an entitled user. > The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays. By this logic, FOSS is always impervious to criticism because non FOSS is worse. That’s not an argument against the premise of the article.

imiric 4y ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. But the article criticizes general issues of _any_ software project. Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to F/LOSS, and for that reason "source code is not enough". F/LOSS projects have plenty to criticize, like any other project. The major difference is that they provide more freedoms, where these issues can be fixed by external contributors. Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.
- zen21 4y ago
  > Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to FOSS This is just not a logical reading of his argument. He is saying FOSS is necessary but not sufficient. His argument can clearly only apply to FOSS and doesn’t apply to other kinds of software. > Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point. Except that’s not what he’s saying. You are responding to the title of the piece but not that argument it makes. He’s saying FOSS is not enough to empower people in general to hack on software and bend it to their will. It’s not clear what you mean by ‘entitled’ in this context.