3 ms·

I think opens source is still what users want even if they don't want to work on the software. It allows your investment not to go away with whatever company is

I think opens source is still what users want even if they don't want to work on the software. It allows your investment not to go away with whatever company is making it or worse by becoming spyware or subscription based. That said I think the post asked an important question about what makes users able to contribute and grow applications better. I think extensibility is correct but the reason it's correct isn't because c++ is hard (though it is). Without stable well documented APIs programming extensions is not a good investment because all that work gets thrown away the moment the project changes it for their needs. I would argue that Chrome and Firefox extensions are bad investments since they depend on applications for which the API decisions are controlled and directed unilaterally by their organizations and if they aren't being good stewards of those APIs (see manifest v3) you'd need to maintain your own fork of either of those large applications yourself.

red_admiral 3y ago
For me, the manifest v3 example proves that open source doesn't matter. Chromium is open source, and although in theory someone could fork it and keep v2 backwards compatibility in, the effort is likely to be prohibitive.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  The effort is prohibitive for an individual, perhaps, but not for a small company or a large one. Open Source isn't just about preserving individual freedoms, it's about making it easy for corporations to share code without complicated arrangements. Don't like what Google's doing with Blink or Chromium, find a company (there are several) that's stable and offering a forked version.
  - red_admiral 3y ago
    Is there any company doing that, which will definitely maintain v2 compatibility?
- bobajeff 3y ago
  Being open source doesn't mean the application is a safe investment but it is still a useful bullet point to have. We can and should also judge our investments by how small, simple and composable the application is.

red_admiral 3y ago

For me, the manifest v3 example proves that open source doesn't matter. Chromium is open source, and although in theory someone could fork it and keep v2 backwards compatibility in, the effort is likely to be prohibitive.

asadotzler 3y ago
The effort is prohibitive for an individual, perhaps, but not for a small company or a large one. Open Source isn't just about preserving individual freedoms, it's about making it easy for corporations to share code without complicated arrangements. Don't like what Google's doing with Blink or Chromium, find a company (there are several) that's stable and offering a forked version.
- red_admiral 3y ago
  Is there any company doing that, which will definitely maintain v2 compatibility?
bobajeff 3y ago
Being open source doesn't mean the application is a safe investment but it is still a useful bullet point to have. We can and should also judge our investments by how small, simple and composable the application is.