8 ms·

What if Y is closed-source? What if source for Y is not available for some other reason? What if your patch breaks Y's behavior on other platforms?

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>What if Y is closed-source? What if source for Y is not available for some other reason? What if your patch breaks Y's behavior on other platforms? Advantages of open source may not apply to closed source.
- simula67 14y ago
  OK, let me elaborate. Unless you believe all software must be open source ( which is hopelessly unrealistic ) the question becomes how we can bring about most openness. Surely, closed software on an open platform is better than open software on a closed platform? But to do stuff like this takes a lot of resources. Group of volunteers may not have the resources to do so on their spare time. So we may all be better off because we have good engineers highly paid and with lots of resources to work on such an important platform as the OS. TL;DR: Reading the comment fully recommended before snarking.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    Let's put aside that what you're saying is a red herring. (RedHat makes a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. Samsung, Intel, Google, IBM and Oracle make a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. "Open source running on open source" is entirely practical and just because closed source software exists doesn't mean you can't refrain from using it, see Debian et al.) But let's address the original point. Suppose I want to run Steam on Linux. Some bug in Steam requires me to put an ugly hack in the kernel to address it. +1 ugly hack in the kernel, the same as it would be on Windows. Meanwhile in a hundred other cases where the thing with the bug was open source, I can fix it on the other end and it doesn't require an ugly hack to be put in the kernel. So the Linux kernel gets one ugly hack while the Windows kernel gets a hundred and one. It doesn't stop being an advantage just because there are exceptions to the rule.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>What if Y is closed-source? What if source for Y is not available for some other reason? What if your patch breaks Y's behavior on other platforms? Advantages of open source may not apply to closed source.

simula67 14y ago
OK, let me elaborate. Unless you believe all software must be open source ( which is hopelessly unrealistic ) the question becomes how we can bring about most openness. Surely, closed software on an open platform is better than open software on a closed platform? But to do stuff like this takes a lot of resources. Group of volunteers may not have the resources to do so on their spare time. So we may all be better off because we have good engineers highly paid and with lots of resources to work on such an important platform as the OS. TL;DR: Reading the comment fully recommended before snarking.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  Let's put aside that what you're saying is a red herring. (RedHat makes a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. Samsung, Intel, Google, IBM and Oracle make a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. "Open source running on open source" is entirely practical and just because closed source software exists doesn't mean you can't refrain from using it, see Debian et al.) But let's address the original point. Suppose I want to run Steam on Linux. Some bug in Steam requires me to put an ugly hack in the kernel to address it. +1 ugly hack in the kernel, the same as it would be on Windows. Meanwhile in a hundred other cases where the thing with the bug was open source, I can fix it on the other end and it doesn't require an ugly hack to be put in the kernel. So the Linux kernel gets one ugly hack while the Windows kernel gets a hundred and one. It doesn't stop being an advantage just because there are exceptions to the rule.