3 ms·

Linux solved a problem, VLC solves a problem, MySQL solves a problem. Its ridiculous to say "open source doesn't solve problems". We need to do those things y

Linux solved a problem, VLC solves a problem, MySQL solves a problem. Its ridiculous to say "open source doesn't solve problems". We need to do those things you mentioned in addition to open sourcing the code. Its our code let's see what we paid for.

yeukhon 13y ago
Linux is a software,not a service. Linux is an operating system and is supposed to work for everyone's commodity hardware. healthcare.gov is a service, not a software you can reuse.
andsosayallofus 13y ago
He didn't say "open source doesn't solve problems", he said "open sourcing doesn't solve problems". The verb is very different to the noun. Yes there are open source softwares that once completed are efficacious in solving the problems they were designed to solve. The point yeukhon was making was the act of open sourcing a project alone doesn't somehow inherently solve problems in its development. At least in this case not the two enumerated problems he sees with the healthcare.gov project.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- growupkids 13y ago
  So wikileaks didn't solve any problems open sourcing secrets?
  - ordinary 13y ago
    Open source is a development model that encourages sharing and redistribution of source code. It is not a term that can be applied to the making public of government secrets, which has nothing to do with the encouragement of information sharing. When Wikileaks gets their hands on government secrets and puts it on a website, they haven't made those secrets 'open source'. That word doesn't even make sense in that context. Even if I get my hands on the source code of Windows and put it in a GitHub repository, I still haven't made Windows open source.
jamesk_au 13y ago
> Its our code let's see what we paid for. That is a different petition to the one that has been posted, which states that the reason for open sourcing the code is "so we may help fix any found issues". The "let's see what we paid for" argument is an appeal to the more general proposition that there should be public scrutiny of public money. There already exist mechanisms for accessing taxpayer-funded content held by government (including source code) under FOI and other legislation. Unless there is some inadequacy in the operation of those laws, I think they answer the point.
- growupkids 13y ago
  Nonsense. Open information on public expenditures is a painful process and you know it. So by that token the petition should simply be responded to by the whitehouse with a "file a FoIA". Balderdash and red herrings all around. It's public money, it's public code: period. Your point is a distraction, and you know it.

yeukhon 13y ago

Linux is a software,not a service. Linux is an operating system and is supposed to work for everyone's commodity hardware. healthcare.gov is a service, not a software you can reuse.

andsosayallofus 13y ago

He didn't say "open source doesn't solve problems", he said "open sourcing doesn't solve problems". The verb is very different to the noun. Yes there are open source softwares that once completed are efficacious in solving the problems they were designed to solve. The point yeukhon was making was the act of open sourcing a project alone doesn't somehow inherently solve problems in its development. At least in this case not the two enumerated problems he sees with the healthcare.gov project.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
growupkids 13y ago
So wikileaks didn't solve any problems open sourcing secrets?
- ordinary 13y ago
  Open source is a development model that encourages sharing and redistribution of source code. It is not a term that can be applied to the making public of government secrets, which has nothing to do with the encouragement of information sharing. When Wikileaks gets their hands on government secrets and puts it on a website, they haven't made those secrets 'open source'. That word doesn't even make sense in that context. Even if I get my hands on the source code of Windows and put it in a GitHub repository, I still haven't made Windows open source.

jamesk_au 13y ago

> Its our code let's see what we paid for. That is a different petition to the one that has been posted, which states that the reason for open sourcing the code is "so we may help fix any found issues". The "let's see what we paid for" argument is an appeal to the more general proposition that there should be public scrutiny of public money. There already exist mechanisms for accessing taxpayer-funded content held by government (including source code) under FOI and other legislation. Unless there is some inadequacy in the operation of those laws, I think they answer the point.

growupkids 13y ago
Nonsense. Open information on public expenditures is a painful process and you know it. So by that token the petition should simply be responded to by the whitehouse with a "file a FoIA". Balderdash and red herrings all around. It's public money, it's public code: period. Your point is a distraction, and you know it.