3 ms·

If it is, then Open Source has won, right? And we can disband the OSI, right? I suspect that's not the message they intended to send. (I read the article, btw

If it is, then Open Source has won, right? And we can disband the OSI, right? I suspect that's not the message they intended to send. (I read the article, btw.) As the author of source available software, this article merely seems to be screeching from big players that they can't exploit some software anymore.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
I'm not following; how does an onslaught of fake FOSS mean FOSS has won? If anything it sounds like it needs more defending than ever.
- havilland 3y ago
  How is fake FOSS different from FOSS ?
  - dartos 3y ago
    Is fake kindness different from real kindness?
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  It means that the expectation is that the source is open. The default used to be closed source, so in essence, Open Source has won. Personally, I don't see source available as a bad thing. [1] [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/12/is-source-available-really-that-bad/ https://gavinhoward.com/2023/12/is-source-available-really-t...
- vinceguidry 3y ago
  Nobody is discussing FOSS here, only OSS. The only solution to capitalistic shenanigans is the software commune, OSS isn't a commune, FOSS is. OSS is, essentially, a software cartel disguised as a philanthropic enterprise. Advocates of OSS want to live in a world where bigcorps and little guys can coexist, this has always been a pipe dream, since day one. FOSS locks the bigcorps out of the discussion, or rather, forces them to compete on the same playing field as the little guy, which amounts to the same thing. So you see these articles come out every now and again bemoaning capitalistic greed. Communist utopia is right there bro. Just open your eyes and stop letting bigcorps eat your lunch every couple of years or so.
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
I thought the article was arguing that say Redis was while “open” the codebase is owned by one company and hence that’s no different to proprietary. To which I say, yeah we know. I mean I can fork Linux kernel tonight and announce my big new plans, and there will be zero installs. Big FOSS software is there because they built a reputation of constant quality over years (as successful proprietary companies should and sometimes do) That social capital is immensely hard to compete against (the Hashicorp forking might manage?) And that is what “the big players” are trying to exploit - that for a decade they have led / organised / helped / whatever the development of this software and now they want to monetise It’s also why I think the “foundation” model works surprisingly well - we can trust that to keep software going so it’s a better ask for cash (even if the support model is the “best” imo)
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  There are tons of forks of the Linux kernel. For example, Debian ships their own, and Ubuntu, which is based on Debian, ships a different one. These are kept mostly in sync with upstream but it's completely plausible that if upstream made a change they didn't like they'd just revert it. The actual problems are with things like systemd, which are enormous and lack standardization but get integrated into numerous parts of the system. Then you can't replace a piece of it or your piece has to integrate with all of the things the original did, but since none of the integrations follow any standards they can change at any time and people can add new ones that only work with the original and -- surprise -- your replacement is suddenly broken.
  - margorczynski 2y ago
    The thing is most of those changes are minimal and it is completely unrealistic for any non-megacorp to maintain their own implementation of it. The example here would be Google and Android. Another great example is Redis - where the main competing product is now not a fork of the original but a new thing by none other than MS, as they have the cash and resources like Google to pull something like this off.
    - 2y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

I'm not following; how does an onslaught of fake FOSS mean FOSS has won? If anything it sounds like it needs more defending than ever.

havilland 3y ago
How is fake FOSS different from FOSS ?
- dartos 3y ago
  Is fake kindness different from real kindness?
gavinhoward 3y ago
It means that the expectation is that the source is open. The default used to be closed source, so in essence, Open Source has won. Personally, I don't see source available as a bad thing. [1] [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2023/12/is-source-available-really-that-bad/ https://gavinhoward.com/2023/12/is-source-available-really-t...
vinceguidry 3y ago
Nobody is discussing FOSS here, only OSS. The only solution to capitalistic shenanigans is the software commune, OSS isn't a commune, FOSS is. OSS is, essentially, a software cartel disguised as a philanthropic enterprise. Advocates of OSS want to live in a world where bigcorps and little guys can coexist, this has always been a pipe dream, since day one. FOSS locks the bigcorps out of the discussion, or rather, forces them to compete on the same playing field as the little guy, which amounts to the same thing. So you see these articles come out every now and again bemoaning capitalistic greed. Communist utopia is right there bro. Just open your eyes and stop letting bigcorps eat your lunch every couple of years or so.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago

I thought the article was arguing that say Redis was while “open” the codebase is owned by one company and hence that’s no different to proprietary. To which I say, yeah we know. I mean I can fork Linux kernel tonight and announce my big new plans, and there will be zero installs. Big FOSS software is there because they built a reputation of constant quality over years (as successful proprietary companies should and sometimes do) That social capital is immensely hard to compete against (the Hashicorp forking might manage?) And that is what “the big players” are trying to exploit - that for a decade they have led / organised / helped / whatever the development of this software and now they want to monetise It’s also why I think the “foundation” model works surprisingly well - we can trust that to keep software going so it’s a better ask for cash (even if the support model is the “best” imo)

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
There are tons of forks of the Linux kernel. For example, Debian ships their own, and Ubuntu, which is based on Debian, ships a different one. These are kept mostly in sync with upstream but it's completely plausible that if upstream made a change they didn't like they'd just revert it. The actual problems are with things like systemd, which are enormous and lack standardization but get integrated into numerous parts of the system. Then you can't replace a piece of it or your piece has to integrate with all of the things the original did, but since none of the integrations follow any standards they can change at any time and people can add new ones that only work with the original and -- surprise -- your replacement is suddenly broken.
- margorczynski 2y ago
  The thing is most of those changes are minimal and it is completely unrealistic for any non-megacorp to maintain their own implementation of it. The example here would be Google and Android. Another great example is Redis - where the main competing product is now not a fork of the original but a new thing by none other than MS, as they have the cash and resources like Google to pull something like this off.
  - 2y ago