How did you start hating opensource?
-
@boomzilla said in How did you start hating opensource?:
But you forgot to complain here?
Why would I? The way in which libpng responds to ill-formed input is reasonable enough for some applications, but not for the one I was working on.
-
@Gurth said in How did you start hating opensource?:
I was re-acquainted with the meaning of the words “dependency hell.”
That's the biggest problem with OSS.
I don't have that intimate experience with Linux, but when you consider that mods for skyrim is essentially OOS with dependencies (yes, there are library mods....
right?), you run into problems with everything being stuff you have to hunt down and find, because each mod is an independent person who needs to, not just be credited, but sourced independently.It's good when a library mod or dependency is packaged due to the OP agreeing to it, but then when the dependency is updated, the dependent has to be updated.
With proprietary, more crediting would be nice (windows has that stupid "oh hi" first time boot up, why now throw a dev name in the corner with their title while they worked on it), the packaging of everything is one of the biggest advantages.
To put it into perspective.
Skyrim, Dual Sheath Redux.
What does it do? It lets you see both weapons sheathed, instead of just the right arm one.
Why wasn't this in the base game? Because all of the additional animations and exceptions and combinations of gear, etc. They probably gave up at some point. In come the modders. Why do I really want it? Because the default animations are pretty bad, but all the good animation sets assume you have DSR.DSR, dependencies: SKSE, SkyUI, Java, XP32 Skeleton.
SkyUI (make the game more PC friendly UI), dependencies: SKSE
SKSE (scripting enhancements because the base methods suck)
Java (because OOS)XP32 Skeleton (for the extra nodes for placing weapons on back), dependencies: SKSE, Realistic Ragdolls, FNIS, RaceMenu OR Enhance Character Edit / NetImmerse
FNIS (custom animation framework that XP32 uses, so you can control where weapons go).
Realistic Ragdolls (or the new skeletons just freeze in place when you make a kill)All this, to use the much better animations that the modders came up with.
All because the modders that made the animations, like putting weapons on their back.Then you have to carefully install and make your load order correct.
Then you have to run two different patchers so that the frameworks are aware of your setup (various mod weapons installed, etc).
-
Guess what would have happened had I bought something?
It would have been a DLC rolled into the game, one click install.
-
@xaade said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@Gurth said in How did you start hating opensource?:
dependency hell
That's the biggest problem with OSS.
Modern Linuxes have it much easier with their package managers, but back when I used to use it, you basically had to:
- Do the ./configure – make – make install dance
- Discover a dependency is missing or out of date at some point during that
- Hunt down the dependency using a search engine
- IF attempt <= tolerance THEN GOTO 1
- Do without/Keep using the old version
This was one of my principal reasons for replacing my Linux PC with a Mac. (The other main one was that I had had it up to ¯here¯ with the crappy hardware I used to buy. A third was that I still had to reboot to Windows for certain types of software I wanted to use. No, it wasn't even games.)
To be fair, it wasn’t always like this for absolutely all software. Big programs, like (perhaps surprisingly to some here) the major GNU stuff such as Emacs, tended to install fine in only one or two, maybe three attempts. It was mostly the smaller things made by individual developers that always seemed to require far more additional installs than I’d be willing to go through.
-
When the MySql license changed and we tried to talk to these douchebags. We had to switch. Was scared that porting and testing those spatial-functions will take forever. Turned out that by that time these were CLR-1-liners in Mickeysoft's SQL-Server and they even let you redistribute the Express-version for free if you register. And we didn't even need a lawyer...
I hate the license and the preachers (incl. my younger self) more than the shitty UIs.
-
@Gurth said in How did you start hating opensource?:
- Do the ./configure – make – make install dance
- Realize that won't work because this program is different
- Hunt down the readme for a proper list of commands
- Have GCC barf at you with an 80-line template error
- Fuck this shit and boot to Windows.
-
-
@Maciejasjmj said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Fuck this shit and boot to Windows.
Now I can't build anything. :-(
-
Freedom is a constant struggle
-
-
@xaade What is "OOS"?
I've been doing Skyrim mods for ... well since Creation Kit was released and I ain't never seen one using Java for anything. That's ridiculous.
But yes, a lot of mods have dependencies on other mods, and a lot of mods (like SKSE) don't do anything on their own but exist only to support other mods, and that's why Steam's "paid mods" site (which didn't think about how to handle ANY of this shit-- in fact it's likely they didn't talk to a SINGLE actual modder before they designed it) was such a huge and instant failure. Well, one of the many reasons.
Also BTW there's a tool called LOOT that'll automatically set your load order correctly after installing mods, and the author of that is yet another guy who'd get screwed on money with the "paid mods" deal, even though his work is critical to modding working.
-
@Weng said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Shit like AGPL is much more problematical.
If I license a website under the AGPL and then visit it using Internet Explorer, does Microsoft have to send me the full source code of Internet Explorer?
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
GoLang
I'm not sure what language that is, but Go has support for PNGs as part of the standard library.
-
@ben_lubar said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If I license a website under the AGPL and then visit it using Internet Explorer, does Microsoft have to send me the full source code of Internet Explorer?
There are some weirdos who want that. Everyone else just ignores the pathetic bleating of those morons. To the great unwashed, they're just strange. To the people with a clue about the legal status of things, the AGPL types are a bunch of idiots who can take their freedumb and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Don't touch their code. You probably don't want to anyway: it's likely infected by the stupids.
-
@ben_lubar Probably.
-
@Weng I really want to make a license agreement where RMS has to give me money every time someone posts to this forum using the HTTP protocol.
-
@dkf wharrgarbl wharrgarbl wharrgarbl
-
@ben_lubar said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
GoLang
I'm not sure what language that is, but Go has support for PNGs as part of the standard library.
That's some nice @blakeyratting right there.
-
@FrostCat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@ben_lubar said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
GoLang
I'm not sure what language that is, but Go has support for PNGs as part of the standard library.
That's some nice @blakeyratting right there.
Well, there's a difference. Blakey says things like that because he's being sarcastic. Ben says things like that because he actually thinks so literally that referring to something in any fashion that isn't completely transparent causes him confusion and mental anguish, even when he actually understands the intent.
So no, Ben was completely sincere just then about being uncertain what was meant by 'GoLang'. He could see that Blakey meant 'the Go programming language', but still felt it was potentially confusing and misleading, and thought that this needed to be pointed out. No kidding.
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@xaade What is "OOS"?
Object Oriented Scripting?
:jaundiced_shrug:
-
In this thread:
@everybody STILL doesn't understand the GPL, its intent or how it applies to software.
@everybody thinks that software being available under GPL is worse for them than the software not existing at all because "boo hoo I can't distribute derivatives without source" but somehow if the software didn't exist they could? Or something.
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
a lot of mods (like SKSE) don't do anything on their own but exist only to support other mods
What shitty pointless software. Why don't those developers take some pride in their work and actually finish something instead of just taking value away from society?
-
@Zecc said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Object Oriented Scripting?
-
@mott555 True.
If you develop for opensource or inhouse applications, the world of GPL opensource welcomes you.
If you develop for something to sell, it's best to just pretend the GPL opensource world does not exist.
EDIT: Added GPL parts because there are nice things like BSD or Apache license.
-
@cheong said in How did you start hating opensource?:
there are nice things like BSD
MIT license is great, and if you want less restrictive, there's always the WTFPL.
But in the general case, the MIT license protects the author of the software from lawsuits, so go with that.
-
@cheong said in How did you start hating opensource?:
BSD
The primary thing that the BSD license does is effectively establish the equivalent of moral rights (as understood throughout the EU) in the US system which doesn't formally recognise them as such. What are moral rights? Well, the main one is the right to be identified as the author of the work. This is independent from the economic rights, i.e., the right to make money by exploiting the code.
The MIT and Apache licenses are very similar. There some differences, but the key thing about all three is that a third party can take the code and use it to make money without having to contribute back. (It's encouraged, of course, but not required.) What about commercial competitors based off of the code? Well, if you can't add enough extra to persuade your (potential) customers to give you money instead of having something free, you don't deserve to be in business.
-
It can easily be changed to:
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:@flabdablet Here's a typical example in my experience:
Boss: We need such-and-such feature right now!
Me: Okay, I'll see what I can find.
time passes
Me: Okay, I found a library that does most of what we need. Problem is, it's the only one out there for our platform, and it's expensive as hell.
Bosses: Talk to the company, see if we can pay them a bit less for a less feature-full version. Or maybe that we'd pay them that through 12 months.
Me: Hey, Commercial-Company guys, we'll throw money at you but a bit less than what you charge, if you give us a cheaper version of your library.
Commercial-Company Guy: No! It's not profitable enough for us! You pay more NOW! Pay more now OR DIE! MONEY OR DEATH! frothing at mouth
Me: Boss, they said no. I can make our own version of the library, but it'll take at least six months to develop and test, assuming I don't have a bunch of other stuff to work on.
Bosses: Forget it. We just won't provide those features.Essentially you've just stumbled upon the most basic fact: the whoever owns the rights and chooses license can control where their work will be used.
I think it's rather sane. Can't see the assholeness.
Now, it looks that now there are two types of "pricing": with money and ideals. Why do you think that money's more fair?
-
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If it's really ever the case that the only library you can find to do some important thing is GPL-licenced with an unavailable author, don't blame the GPL for the resulting difficulty. Blame the inherent susceptibility of the closed-source commercial software ecosystem to market failure.
Nice. So it's closed-source's fault when open-source projects fail.
Nope. It's closed source software's failure when it can't succeed without a GPL-licensed library.
Simple as that.
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@FrostCat Yeah.
Don't make fun of the guy who doesn't know what "etc." is. Make fun of me. Because obviously I'm the most deserving of it.
Pile it on.
Come on.
Y
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Now, it looks that now there are two types of "pricing": with money and ideals. Why do you think that money's more fair?
When you price with ideals, which ideals should you use? That is the heart of the difference between the GPL and the other major OSS license groups.
-
@dkf said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Now, it looks that now there are two types of "pricing": with money and ideals. Why do you think that money's more fair?
When you price with ideals, which ideals should you use? That is the heart of the difference between the GPL and the other major OSS license groups.
Yeah, I get this. I just don't get the hate. These are just different "business" models.
-
If you're going to write unethical software that doesn't respect user's freedoms, you have no business using GPL licensed libraries and nobody cares with your opinion. It's that simple.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
unethical software
is that supposed to mean? KZ Manager?
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If you're going to write unethical software
Wow that's a tight definition of ethical. "Sure your software saves the lives of hundreds of infants every day, but it's not open source therefore it's unethical. My murderbot control software, however, 100% ethical. Mop out that puppy blood, let's run another test on these kittens."
-
I'm calling shenanigans on this, simply because most OSS devs don't act like this. Yes, the GNU folks often do, but given that 99% of OSS devs have shifted away from GPL precisely because of this Free Software Master Race crap,...
What you miss is that the anecdote explicitly refers to GPL. If people flee GPL because of it's bullshit, that would leave fanatics with GPL, lending credence to the anecdote.
-
@blakeyrat You just pulled it straight from Machiavelli book. The ends doesn't justify the means. Yes, your software is unethical.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@blakeyrat You just pulled it straight from Machiavelli book. The ends doesn't justify the means. Yes, your software is unethical.
You're still going to have to define 'unethical' in this context...
or at least, I hope you do.
Otherwise I'm going to continue operating under the assumption you're incorrect.
(and I'm someone who has zero problems with oss, and works with oss all the time)
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
You just pulled it straight from Machiavelli book. The ends doesn't justify the means. Yes, your software is unethical.
I think a philosophy that would call a piece of software that saves babies unethical, simply because its source code is unavailable, is unethical. Cram that in your pipe and smoke it.
Of course considering you're using the name "wharrgarbl" I'm sure this is just a lazy troll. Still.
-
From the FSF's website:
We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as > you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By > > doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access > to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.
-
@wharrgarbl - just because you quote someone using unethical in a similar context as you doesn't mean that you (or them) are using the word correctly.
At least the author that you're quoting knows to use the subjective "we consider them..." rather than outright explicitly stating that "Yes, your software is unethical."
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
user's freedoms
What freedoms do users have, other than whatever the software author gives them?
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them
Except the majority of users don't know anywhere near enough to actually be able to make a change they might want to make.
It's the same as the people who claim open source security software is better because they can inspect the source code for backdoors. Really? Do you understand
- the maths involved in making something cryptographically secure,
- the language the security tool is programmed in and
- the layout of the program?
Enough to be sure you could spot a flaw, either intentional or accidental? And if so have you actually looked through it to do so, or are you asserting that somebody, out of the billions of people with the specialised knowledge required, must have done so because it's open source and that's what happens, definitely, freedom yo?
-
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
It's the same as the people who claim open source security software is better because they can inspect the source code for backdoors.
I think that's thoroughly been proven wrong in the last few years.
-
@Jaloopa This is exactly what happened with OpenSSL. Guess what the project is only getting fixed now companies are actually interested in supporting it.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
From the FSF's website
Wow, what a load of crap. That's exactly what I was taking about.
And it still doesn't explain why a program that doesn't fulfill their precious "freedoms" should be considered as "unethical" any further than "it just is".Otherwise, it is nonfree.
Yes. So fucking what?
-
@ChrisH Didn't you know? Non-free software "controls the users". Windows is puppeting my hands right now as I type this, forcing me to spread the gospel!
-
@Yamikuronue All hail the HypnoWindows
-
-
If I could make my software control its users, there would be a lot of money in my bank account and/or a lot of corpses lying around at $CUSTOMER sites worldwide.
Now THAT I would consider unethical. And really great.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.
I don't think they really understand what they just said here. Basically, they are arguing that software is 'unfree' if you don't understand the source code in detail yourself, regardless of how it is distributed. IOW, if you are not a contributing programmer yourself, then you are being oppressed by the software you are using.
The crazy part is, while most FSF/GNU proponents would say that this is putting words in their mouths, RMS himself has repeatedly stated in various ways that this is exactly how he views things. He has said things before that indicate that in his opinion, anyone who can't be bothered to learn to program, and to review the code of every program they are using before using it, is less than a full human being.
Holy fuck. This makes his ideas about economic efficiency look sensible.
Shoop: SHell Object Oriented Programming
