3 ms·

The title of this article deserves to be answered with a strong "Yes!" This is something I've noticed too --- the fact that software is "open source" does not m

The title of this article deserves to be answered with a strong "Yes!" This is something I've noticed too --- the fact that software is "open source" does not mean that it can't be user-hostile, and the impression that one needs source code and an increasingly-complex build system to do anything can itself be used as a form of discouragement against other easier and more empowering approaches. If they were going to add functionality, or extend it or in some other way modify it, source code access seems like a basic and absolute requirement. All the crackers and modders of the 80s and 90s would disagree. There was no expectation of access to any source code, yet people modified software in more ways than ever. You only needed a hex editor and debugger. PC magazines would even publish binary patches of the form "change byte in foo.exe from 3F to 9A". There's another comment here about Chromium, but Firefox is also a great example; it's open-source, yet they've been adding all sorts of unwanted changes. Theoretically, you could revert them all and build it yourself, but getting to the point of building it is itself an ordeal that also requires more computing power than a typical user might have, and you're still faced with the problem that you may change other things you didn't want changed. In that case it's much easier to patch the binary. The source code only acts as a guide to what to patch, so it's not of no value, and that may be the only benefit that open source has. To use an analogy, other physical devices like appliances, vehicles, and electronics are modified and repaired almost always without access to the original engineering documentation, or even official service instructions. If one does have such material it can be helpful, but it's not a necessity. Why should software be any different? Educating people to understand that software is not magic and that source code is not a holy grail will do far more for user freedom than opening the source. But knowledge is power, and those in power don't want others to know too much.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> All the crackers and modders of the 80s and 90s would disagree. There was no expectation of access to any source code, yet people modified software in more ways than ever. You only needed a hex editor and debugger. PC magazines would even publish binary patches of the form "change byte in foo.exe from 3F to 9A". That typically let you unlock otherwise locked or hidden features. I'd like to see anyone add support for a new MIDI control surface in Ardour just using a byte editor.
asadotzler 3y ago
>Theoretically, you could revert them all and build it yourself, but getting to the point of building it is itself an ordeal that also requires more computing power than a typical user might have I've been compiling Firefox (and Mozilla before that) on consumer laptops with free software for almost 25 years. Your claim that it takes resources regular people don't have is simply false. It used to be hard, it took me an hour or two to set up my first build environment on Windows back in 1999 but in 2000 I got a linux machine and that became like three commands for setup with no fuss and today it's about as simple as opening a prompt and typing a single command. Modifying is not much harder, though if you're unfamiliar, you'd probably want to read 5 minutes of documentation.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

> All the crackers and modders of the 80s and 90s would disagree. There was no expectation of access to any source code, yet people modified software in more ways than ever. You only needed a hex editor and debugger. PC magazines would even publish binary patches of the form "change byte in foo.exe from 3F to 9A". That typically let you unlock otherwise locked or hidden features. I'd like to see anyone add support for a new MIDI control surface in Ardour just using a byte editor.

asadotzler 3y ago

>Theoretically, you could revert them all and build it yourself, but getting to the point of building it is itself an ordeal that also requires more computing power than a typical user might have I've been compiling Firefox (and Mozilla before that) on consumer laptops with free software for almost 25 years. Your claim that it takes resources regular people don't have is simply false. It used to be hard, it took me an hour or two to set up my first build environment on Windows back in 1999 but in 2000 I got a linux machine and that became like three commands for setup with no fuss and today it's about as simple as opening a prompt and typing a single command. Modifying is not much harder, though if you're unfamiliar, you'd probably want to read 5 minutes of documentation.