3 ms·
I'm with you on this one. «Proper» open source software are installable with distributions package manager with workable defaults, albeit opinionated but crafte
by tuyiown 3y ago
I'm with you on this one. «Proper» open source software are installable with distributions package manager with workable defaults, albeit opinionated but crafted with minimum care for a targeted usage.
Maybe it's not viable for commercial purpose, but status quo hurt open source software hard by a strong erosion of what to expect of it, without clear long term benefits for companies choosing such a scheme.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoI disagree: just because something is open source doesn’t not imply the authors have any duty to also provide packaging and distribution as well. Distribution is an orthogonal concern. The fact that many existing things are nicely distributed is a pleasant bonus, not a necessary condition.
- tuyiown 3y ago> open source doesn’t not imply the authors have any duty to also provide packaging and distribution as well If the authors are using open source as a selling point and marketing relay for broad audiences, I think there is a moral obligation to. For projects with little awareness, niche, or "just a hobby, won't be big and professional", yes sure, I would never think to have any opinion, nor bothering them.
- fuddle 3y agoOfficially, it's open source as long as "the code is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose".