3 ms·

> I think the increasingly widespread attitude that only open source software is good and trustworthy increasingly annoying and problematic. Software being ope

> I think the increasingly widespread attitude that only open source software is good and trustworthy increasingly annoying and problematic. Software being open source almost always makes it more trustworthy, and I'm glad that more people are picking up on this over time. > I generally like people being able to out food on the table Completely agreed, and this makes for a frustrating paradox. I don't use Obsidian because it's closed source, but I don't think it's evil or anything. Conversely, I pay for Immich, and I hope their model is sustainable.

perching_aix 1y ago
[flagged]
- oniony 1y ago
  They get to counter a point they think is wrong in an open forum on the internet. I guess they get the satisfaction of providing a second viewpoint to a claim, so that the claim, alone, is not the only viewpoint that others coming to this thread see. What did you get out of calling out their counterclaim?
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - exe34 1y ago
      so why did it take you so long to be open about your own motives? still, it's good that you did admit to it in the end.
      - perching_aix 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - coldtea 1y ago
      They restate what the other person said in more correct (as they see them) terms. They're not "contorting" anything, nor are they attributing their version to the other person. I mean, "They're being a fucknugget for riffing off of the other person's words". Jesus, chill... And yes, they respond based "on their own agenda". That's what all conversation and sharing of opinions entails: telling it from your perspective, and based on what you think it's better. >rather than replying clearly on their own terms What you quoted couldn't be clearer, or express the responder's terms any better. Your issue is not that the response is not on their own terms, it's that is not on your terms, where phrasing it similar to what the other person said is supposed to be bad. But that's more of a you problem. Was just looking at another thread, and chanced on you berating someone for pointing to GNU's website as opposed to writing a set of custom arguments on the spot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45679487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45679487 As long as they aren't abusive, people can answer anyway they damn please, including rewording what the parent wrote, or pointing to some link they agree with. Is that a novel concept? >And I'd get even more relief if they admitted to having been an asshole on purpose and apologized. God forbid, stopped acting this way. oh, the irony.
      - perching_aix 1y ago
        > They restate what the other person said in more correct (as they see them) terms. They're not "contorting" anything, nor are they attributing their version to the other person. How is this not a contradiction? They're not contorting their words, they're just restating them with subtle changes to make it "correct". What? > And yes, they respond based "on their own agenda". That's what all conversation and sharing of opinions entails: telling it from your perspective, and based on what you think it's better. Yes, and do you not see how clapping back by "cleverly" rewriting someone words would come across as incredibly annoying? This is just a slightly more elaborate version of how children bicker! How do I need to explain this? > But that's more of a you problem. It certainly seems that way... > oh, the irony People getting hostile in response to hostility? Oh no, not the irony?! Case in point: > As long as they aren't abusive, people can answer anyway they damn please, including rewording what the parent wrote, This WAS abusive, that's my whole issue dude. It'd appear what is and isn't abusive isn't a fundamental force of the universe, and you and a few of your peers here just happen to not find what I - and imo, any average person with a reading comprehension - find immensely abusive.
    - rightbyte 1y ago
      May the one without sin throw the first stone?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > They get to counter a point they think is wrong They didn't counter OP's claim, though. OP is essentially saying that software other than open-source can be trustworthy and the supposed counter-claim is that open-source software is more trustworthy. Regardless of that being true or false, it's not a counter to the claim that closed-source software can also be trustworthy.
- coldtea 1y ago
  The satisfaction that they told the objective truth.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- brazukadev 1y ago
  I have the impression these people only use Big Tech open source projects. Why would they expect software developers to work for free so they can give their beautiful contribution of using it for free is really unknown to me.
pjmlp 1y ago
In theory, in practice it is obvious that too many eyes to the source keep missing CVEs.
- exe34 1y ago
  for me it's about running it locally/inside a wireguard network, and not having the rug pulled. not everything needs to be exposed to the internet.
- coldtea 1y ago
  Closed source also keeps missing CVEs, only most of them you never know because they aren't even making it to an officially released CVE. You usually don't even know what libs it uses and at what versions, never mind the proprietary code. And then there's the closed source's Cloud part and its holes as well, which is a whole other can of worms.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    I haven't said otherwise, other than the fallacy that being open by itself fixes those issues.

perching_aix 1y ago

[flagged]

oniony 1y ago
They get to counter a point they think is wrong in an open forum on the internet. I guess they get the satisfaction of providing a second viewpoint to a claim, so that the claim, alone, is not the only viewpoint that others coming to this thread see. What did you get out of calling out their counterclaim?
- perching_aix 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - exe34 1y ago
    so why did it take you so long to be open about your own motives? still, it's good that you did admit to it in the end.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - coldtea 1y ago
    They restate what the other person said in more correct (as they see them) terms. They're not "contorting" anything, nor are they attributing their version to the other person. I mean, "They're being a fucknugget for riffing off of the other person's words". Jesus, chill... And yes, they respond based "on their own agenda". That's what all conversation and sharing of opinions entails: telling it from your perspective, and based on what you think it's better. >rather than replying clearly on their own terms What you quoted couldn't be clearer, or express the responder's terms any better. Your issue is not that the response is not on their own terms, it's that is not on your terms, where phrasing it similar to what the other person said is supposed to be bad. But that's more of a you problem. Was just looking at another thread, and chanced on you berating someone for pointing to GNU's website as opposed to writing a set of custom arguments on the spot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45679487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45679487 As long as they aren't abusive, people can answer anyway they damn please, including rewording what the parent wrote, or pointing to some link they agree with. Is that a novel concept? >And I'd get even more relief if they admitted to having been an asshole on purpose and apologized. God forbid, stopped acting this way. oh, the irony.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      > They restate what the other person said in more correct (as they see them) terms. They're not "contorting" anything, nor are they attributing their version to the other person. How is this not a contradiction? They're not contorting their words, they're just restating them with subtle changes to make it "correct". What? > And yes, they respond based "on their own agenda". That's what all conversation and sharing of opinions entails: telling it from your perspective, and based on what you think it's better. Yes, and do you not see how clapping back by "cleverly" rewriting someone words would come across as incredibly annoying? This is just a slightly more elaborate version of how children bicker! How do I need to explain this? > But that's more of a you problem. It certainly seems that way... > oh, the irony People getting hostile in response to hostility? Oh no, not the irony?! Case in point: > As long as they aren't abusive, people can answer anyway they damn please, including rewording what the parent wrote, This WAS abusive, that's my whole issue dude. It'd appear what is and isn't abusive isn't a fundamental force of the universe, and you and a few of your peers here just happen to not find what I - and imo, any average person with a reading comprehension - find immensely abusive.
  - rightbyte 1y ago
    May the one without sin throw the first stone?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > They get to counter a point they think is wrong They didn't counter OP's claim, though. OP is essentially saying that software other than open-source can be trustworthy and the supposed counter-claim is that open-source software is more trustworthy. Regardless of that being true or false, it's not a counter to the claim that closed-source software can also be trustworthy.
coldtea 1y ago
The satisfaction that they told the objective truth.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
brazukadev 1y ago
I have the impression these people only use Big Tech open source projects. Why would they expect software developers to work for free so they can give their beautiful contribution of using it for free is really unknown to me.

pjmlp 1y ago

In theory, in practice it is obvious that too many eyes to the source keep missing CVEs.

exe34 1y ago
for me it's about running it locally/inside a wireguard network, and not having the rug pulled. not everything needs to be exposed to the internet.
coldtea 1y ago
Closed source also keeps missing CVEs, only most of them you never know because they aren't even making it to an officially released CVE. You usually don't even know what libs it uses and at what versions, never mind the proprietary code. And then there's the closed source's Cloud part and its holes as well, which is a whole other can of worms.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  I haven't said otherwise, other than the fallacy that being open by itself fixes those issues.