3 ms·

With this software you'll typically create one-off installations, no maintenance necessary. I don't expect to get the source code for every tool I use in produc

With this software you'll typically create one-off installations, no maintenance necessary. I don't expect to get the source code for every tool I use in production.

Nullabillity 2y ago
> I don't expect to get the source code for every tool I use in production. You should. > With this software you'll typically create one-off installations, no maintenance necessary. And then just accept that it's lost afterwards? No thanks.
- DrSiemer 2y ago
  > You should. In a perfect world, sure. But most of us, alas, have to live in the real world, where these are considered unreasonable expectations. People need to get paid. That includes the developers who work on unusual niche products like this. > it's lost afterwards It's not lost. It just can't be repurposed, in the unlikely situation that VVVV just disappears completely. Which isn't really a problem for most projects in this space, which are often highly experimental and unique.
  - Nullabillity 2y ago
    > But most of us, alas, have to live in the real world, where these are considered unreasonable expectations. Only because they're enabled by people like you.
    - DrSiemer 2y ago
      Ok, so enlighten me. How would this open-source everything world work? How would companies protect their investments in research and proprietary technology? How will you guarantee security, besides depending on the nebulous "the community will fix it"? Who's in charge of the direction development will take? How will you prevent fragmentation in different branches? What creates a drive for innovation if you take out competition? How will you enforce quality control? And, most of all, how will developers make money?
      - Nullabillity 2y ago
        > Ok, so enlighten me. How would this open-source everything world work? You're the one trying to sell this garbage. > How would companies protect their investments in research and proprietary technology? Should they be able to hold their users hostage like that? > How will you guarantee security, besides depending on the nebulous "the community will fix it"? Haha. Hahahaha. Remember SolarWinds? LastPass? Microsoft? > Who's in charge of the direction development will take? You are, for your branch. You don't have to merge every patch sent your way. You don't have to merge any patch sent your way! > How will you prevent fragmentation in different branches? You don't. It's that "competition" thing you claim to love so much. > What creates a drive for innovation if you take out competition? There are so many unexamined priors that this sentence takes for granted that it's not even wrong, and crosses into pure nonsense. > How will you enforce quality control? You… don't merge patches that don't meet your requirements…? > And, most of all, how will developers make money? Ideally, grants and crowdfunding are pretty much the VC model without the middlemen trying to get rich(er).
        DrSiemer 2y ago
        No need for personal attacks. I am not trying to sell anything and have literally 0 vested interest in VVVV. It's unfair to label it "garbage" though. Your argument that companies are holding their clients "hostage" by not sharing their source code indicates that we fundamentally disagree over one of the core systems that makes an economy work. By your logic, everyone producing anything should reveal exactly how they do it. Even in a totally open source world we would not do this. Some methods are dangerous in the wrong hands. > SolarWinds? LastPass? Microsoft? Naming a few high profile security blunders does not negate the far greater consequences that open sourcing all code would have. > You are, for your branch. Ain't nobody got time for that. I just want to use software, not maintain it. I pay others to do that for me. > It's that "competition" thing you claim to love so much. Fragmentation does not automatically lead to competition. I would argue it actually makes a product weaker, because attentions are divided and it would have to compete with more consolidated efforts. > unexamined priors ... pure nonsense So no real counterargument here. > don't merge patches No time for that. > grants and crowdfunding These usually rely on the expectation of future profits or a unique product that delivers value. Sure, it would be wonderful if all software was supported by altruistic contributors, but again: most of us have to deal with that pesky reality I mentioned earlier.

With this software you'll typically create one-off installations, no maintenance necessary. I don't expect to get the source code for every tool I use in production.

Nullabillity 2y ago

> I don't expect to get the source code for every tool I use in production. You should. > With this software you'll typically create one-off installations, no maintenance necessary. And then just accept that it's lost afterwards? No thanks.

DrSiemer 2y ago
> You should. In a perfect world, sure. But most of us, alas, have to live in the real world, where these are considered unreasonable expectations. People need to get paid. That includes the developers who work on unusual niche products like this. > it's lost afterwards It's not lost. It just can't be repurposed, in the unlikely situation that VVVV just disappears completely. Which isn't really a problem for most projects in this space, which are often highly experimental and unique.
- Nullabillity 2y ago
  > But most of us, alas, have to live in the real world, where these are considered unreasonable expectations. Only because they're enabled by people like you.
  - DrSiemer 2y ago
    Ok, so enlighten me. How would this open-source everything world work? How would companies protect their investments in research and proprietary technology? How will you guarantee security, besides depending on the nebulous "the community will fix it"? Who's in charge of the direction development will take? How will you prevent fragmentation in different branches? What creates a drive for innovation if you take out competition? How will you enforce quality control? And, most of all, how will developers make money?
    - Nullabillity 2y ago
      > Ok, so enlighten me. How would this open-source everything world work? You're the one trying to sell this garbage. > How would companies protect their investments in research and proprietary technology? Should they be able to hold their users hostage like that? > How will you guarantee security, besides depending on the nebulous "the community will fix it"? Haha. Hahahaha. Remember SolarWinds? LastPass? Microsoft? > Who's in charge of the direction development will take? You are, for your branch. You don't have to merge every patch sent your way. You don't have to merge any patch sent your way! > How will you prevent fragmentation in different branches? You don't. It's that "competition" thing you claim to love so much. > What creates a drive for innovation if you take out competition? There are so many unexamined priors that this sentence takes for granted that it's not even wrong, and crosses into pure nonsense. > How will you enforce quality control? You… don't merge patches that don't meet your requirements…? > And, most of all, how will developers make money? Ideally, grants and crowdfunding are pretty much the VC model without the middlemen trying to get rich(er).
      - DrSiemer 2y ago
        No need for personal attacks. I am not trying to sell anything and have literally 0 vested interest in VVVV. It's unfair to label it "garbage" though. Your argument that companies are holding their clients "hostage" by not sharing their source code indicates that we fundamentally disagree over one of the core systems that makes an economy work. By your logic, everyone producing anything should reveal exactly how they do it. Even in a totally open source world we would not do this. Some methods are dangerous in the wrong hands. > SolarWinds? LastPass? Microsoft? Naming a few high profile security blunders does not negate the far greater consequences that open sourcing all code would have. > You are, for your branch. Ain't nobody got time for that. I just want to use software, not maintain it. I pay others to do that for me. > It's that "competition" thing you claim to love so much. Fragmentation does not automatically lead to competition. I would argue it actually makes a product weaker, because attentions are divided and it would have to compete with more consolidated efforts. > unexamined priors ... pure nonsense So no real counterargument here. > don't merge patches No time for that. > grants and crowdfunding These usually rely on the expectation of future profits or a unique product that delivers value. Sure, it would be wonderful if all software was supported by altruistic contributors, but again: most of us have to deal with that pesky reality I mentioned earlier.