3 ms·

> 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.
- rekabis 2y ago
  > What creates a drive for innovation if you take out competition? Closed-source is _protectionism,_ not competitive. _Open-source_ is the ultimate expression of competitiveness… because you are competing against anyone who could bring out an identical product copied directly from your own, with only minor changes. Against Intellectual Monopoly: http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
  - DrSiemer 2y ago
    This is an opinion, not a fact. Many closed-source companies invest heavily in research and development to create innovative solutions, which definitely does drive competition in the market. Differentiation through unique features can enhance a competitive advantage.
    - rekabis 2y ago
      Without severe government regulation, capitalism always moves towards oligopolies and monopolies that use market size to deny new entrants and who can have minimal to no innovation to consume precious profits. This is only possible due to a locked-in consumer base which has no other options available to them. Closed source being anti-innovation is the fact. Competition is enforced by governments and laws, not by any goodwill of corporations, who would sooner see higher profits and lower costs. And all the competitive advantage is useless when the market size of current players prevents entry into the marketplace via patents and outsized war chests -- this is, for example, the current state of the search engine market. Several search engines which were far superior to Google have folded in the last 5 years due to Google’s sheer size and the barriers to entry it enforces due to that size. Even major alternatives are on literal lifelines and starving for lack of users. Yet Google no longer “innovates” for the consumer, and does so purely to enhance it’s revenue stream at the expense of the consumer. On the flip side, open-source forces constant innovation because nothing is hidden. Any company putting out open-source software cannot hide behind market monopolies or suppress similar products via patents, or have access to any of the other competition-killing tools that closed-source has. Because anyone else can quite literally fork their entire product, constant innovation is at the core of remaining the market leader. Read that link I posted and educate yourself.

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.
rekabis 2y ago
> What creates a drive for innovation if you take out competition? Closed-source is _protectionism,_ not competitive. _Open-source_ is the ultimate expression of competitiveness… because you are competing against anyone who could bring out an identical product copied directly from your own, with only minor changes. Against Intellectual Monopoly: http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
- DrSiemer 2y ago
  This is an opinion, not a fact. Many closed-source companies invest heavily in research and development to create innovative solutions, which definitely does drive competition in the market. Differentiation through unique features can enhance a competitive advantage.
  - rekabis 2y ago
    Without severe government regulation, capitalism always moves towards oligopolies and monopolies that use market size to deny new entrants and who can have minimal to no innovation to consume precious profits. This is only possible due to a locked-in consumer base which has no other options available to them. Closed source being anti-innovation is the fact. Competition is enforced by governments and laws, not by any goodwill of corporations, who would sooner see higher profits and lower costs. And all the competitive advantage is useless when the market size of current players prevents entry into the marketplace via patents and outsized war chests -- this is, for example, the current state of the search engine market. Several search engines which were far superior to Google have folded in the last 5 years due to Google’s sheer size and the barriers to entry it enforces due to that size. Even major alternatives are on literal lifelines and starving for lack of users. Yet Google no longer “innovates” for the consumer, and does so purely to enhance it’s revenue stream at the expense of the consumer. On the flip side, open-source forces constant innovation because nothing is hidden. Any company putting out open-source software cannot hide behind market monopolies or suppress similar products via patents, or have access to any of the other competition-killing tools that closed-source has. Because anyone else can quite literally fork their entire product, constant innovation is at the core of remaining the market leader. Read that link I posted and educate yourself.