4 ms·

I guess it's an opinion but the soul of open-source is collective work contributing to a common good. When it's driven by a company that doesn't accept contribu

I guess it's an opinion but the soul of open-source is collective work contributing to a common good. When it's driven by a company that doesn't accept contributions they have the incentives to not develop features that under cut their own market. I think proprietary code makes sense for unexplored markets where the parameters are unknown and so there is risk. Once something is a standard experience (like a word processor) there is a place for open source to work towards. While it becomes feature complete the proprietary product gets to squeeze out the last of it's profits before becoming obsolete and moving on to the next unexplored space.

eternityforest 3y ago
On the other hand, the community has an even bigger incentive to leave out features, because a good fraction of developers are going to be people who want to keep it UNIXy. The community also might make the entire architecture a modular pipeline kind of thing, and it might take years to modernize the UI on top of that(See KiCad). I've noticed most of the FOSS stuff I use is corporate, or gets taken over by corporations quickly. The community is good at developing small libraries, and very obscure special purpose apps, they're not so big on anything LibreOffice sized.
Zetobal 3y ago
Linux Kernel...
serf 3y ago
>I guess it's an opinion but the soul of open-source is collective work contributing to a common good. that may be partially true, but it sounds like the kind of generalization that leads people like Musk or corporations like alphabet/meta/whoever to throw around the phrase 'Open' in an effort to receive kudos for themselves and their groups. the soul of open-source is the open source. One doesn't need to be altruistic to participate, it's just nice when that happens.