How did you start hating opensource?
-
@Gurth I meant when talking about the GPL ...
-
-
@flabdablet How about you say what you mean?
-
@Gurth said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Now, I’m not saying those details don’t matter, but what matters more to the average video watcher is whether or not you need yet another player to even watch this newest and greatest format.
Are these mere video watchers the ones who make the choice about which format to create and/or distribute the video in?
There's a reason we don't send AVI over the wire.
-
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@TimeBandit said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Compared to... all the freedom that commercial licensed software
gives youdoesn't try to claim is intrinsic to its model ?Yeah, that
Because no commercial developer anywhere has ever complained about the inconvenience involved in trying to engulf and incorporate some vital piece of GPL-licensed software they never paid a red cent for. No, the commercial model relies completely on paying a fair price for every line of code. It's the only way to operate if you haven't got an ideology.
-
@flabdablet Another load of bullshit. Because someone from group X did something that means all of Group X must do it. Also the other sentence was total shite as well.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet How about you say what you mean?
What's the point? You're only going to tell me to fuck off again.
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet Another load of bullshit. Because someone from group X did something that means all of Group X must do it.
I'll see your non sequitur and raise you a red herring.
-
@LB_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Are these mere video watchers the ones who make the choice about which format to create and/or distribute the video in?
My point is that having a ton of formats causes video makers to choose a lot of different ones that are seemingly identical as far as output is concerned to the average viewer, thus making life more difficult by either having to install lots of viewers or worse, convert the files from one format to another.
-
@Gurth I would like to speak to these video makers who are distributing their videos in specialized formats that can't be readily played by their target audience. Or maybe the average viewer is not the target audience.
-
What's the point? You're only going to tell me to fuck off again.
Well I might actually understand what you are saying if you took into account.
- You was trying to communicate via song
- You was trying to make a point via a old Stewart Lee sketch.
And I would be rather confused as why this had any relation to how the FSF operates or how this has anything to do to my criticism to them and their preferred license.
Maybe you are a bit thick.
-
My biggest problems with viral licenses are the assumptions they make about who is a user and what kind of software development economic models are acceptable. Which is visible by the "freedoms" they defend.
Users are expected to have the time, ability and inclination to inspect and modify source code. After all, the freedom to do it is worthless if you never intend to do it. Which doesn't happen. Most users will never inspect the source.
More importantly, in their view, software is not intended to be an industry itself, it should only serve to support other industries. These industries then pay the salaries of the programmers but have no stake in the software itself. With the possible exception of software as a service, which ironically is the least "free" kind of software that exists, even by their own definitions. Developing software is expensive, and without the artificial scarcity produced by denying access to the source, it's hard to get people to support the industry. Most people won't pay for something they can get for free, and if the source is open, anyone can make a free distribution of your program.
They basically want software written by hobbyists for hobbyists.
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
I'll see your non sequitur and raise you a red herring.
You did the strawman first.
-
@LB_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
these video makers who are distributing their videos in specialized formats that can't be readily played by their target audience
What have you found that VLC won't play?
-
@flabdablet Obviously whatever he was working with.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Well I might actually understand what you are saying if I didn't have a tin ear and an overweening belief in my own intellectual prowess.
-
@flabdablet How about you actually answer a question like an adult, and didn't keep on making stupid comments when you could clear up the problem with a simple answer.
-
@Kian said in How did you start hating opensource?:
in their view, software is not intended to be an industry itself, it should only serve to support other industries.
Almost. Stallman's original observation was that software development appeared to be headed down a path where the closed-source industrial development model would become so completely dominant as to render any alternative source of software unfeasible.
The FSF-style shared software development model was designed to resist being crushed by commercial pressures, simply to keep the resulting software permanently available as an alternative to commercially developed and licensed software.
Not even Stallman ever thought it would become the only development model.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Not even Stallman ever thought it would become the only development model.
It didn't.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
How about you actually answer a question like an adult
What, and give up playing laser pointer to your ADHD kitten?
-
@flabdablet You do this a lot, say something as a statement of fact and then do this nonsense of pretending the other person (me in this case) is thick because I can't read your mind on the obscure references you suggest I should get. All I have asked you to do is actually answer my question.
Obviously you are a bit of a dick.
-
@lucas1 You're cute when you're cross.
-
@flabdablet Okay you are trolling.
-
@Kian said in How did you start hating opensource?:
My biggest problems with viral licenses are the assumptions they make about who is a user and what kind of software development economic models are acceptable. Which is visible by the "freedoms" they defend.
Users are expected to have the time, ability and inclination to inspect and modify source code. After all, the freedom to do it is worthless if you never intend to do it. Which doesn't happen. Most users will never inspect the source.
More importantly, in their view, software is not intended to be an industry itself, it should only serve to support other industries. These industries then pay the salaries of the programmers but have no stake in the software itself. With the possible exception of software as a service, which ironically is the least "free" kind of software that exists, even by their own definitions. Developing software is expensive, and without the artificial scarcity produced by denying access to the source, it's hard to get people to support the industry. Most people won't pay for something they can get for free, and if the source is open, anyone can make a free distribution of your program.
They basically want software written by hobbyists for hobbyists.
A lot of software (e.g. the Linux kernel, PostgreSQL, nginx, npm, ...) does mainly serve to support other industries. And if you need to choose between paying a huge amount of money up front with the promise of regular updates, or to pay nothing up front with the right to hire any programmer or IT company to implement an additional feature if required (though you can't sell that feature for money) - is the former clearly the best of both options then? I doubt that.
-
@flabdablet In anycase the problem is that Stallman redefined terms to means what he wants them to mean so he can bend the argument to his will.
-
@flabdablet IMHO it is interesting, though, that the FSF first created the LGPL as a non-viral license for libraries, and now advocates against using it.
-
@Grunnen Because it is against their current narrative. They are a cult.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@LB_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
these video makers who are distributing their videos in specialized formats that can't be readily played by their target audience
What have you found that VLC won't play?
- The target audience may not be expected to have VLC
- The fact that VLC is GPL is not relevant
- Why did you quote me and not @Gurth ?
-
@lucas1 Yes. And I don't think that this fundamentalist stance of the FSF is doing any good for the reputation of open source (oh, wait, they are also strongly against the word "open source", right?) but luckily Stallman is not representative for all open source software.
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet In anycase the problem is that Stallman redefined terms to means what he wants them to mean so he can bend the argument to his will.
No, Stallman used a perfectly well-understood sense of the word "free" (free as in speech) as the basis of an easily defensible ideology, then sought to employ a legal hack to make that ideology survive and spread.
Like other puling manbabies with entitlement issues you might not like the ideology very much, but the claim that it is based on some idiosyncratic misuse of the word "freedom" has no merit whatsoever.
-
No, Stallman used a perfectly well-understood sense of the word "free" (free as in speech) as the basis of an easily defensible ideology, then sought to employ a legal hack to make that ideology survive and spread.
In a total different lexicon at the time.
L ike other puling manbabies with entitlement issues you might not like the ideology very much, but the claim that it is based on some idiosyncratic misuse of the word "freedom" has no merit whatsoever.
It nothing to do with that. You keep on ignoring my arguments or replying various ridiculous means like song or dance. Why don't you make your next argument a mime?
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
In a total different lexicon at the time.
In a galaxy far far away?
-
@flabdablet He deliberately misused terms from political idealogies into software engineering. It has nothing to do with Star wars.
-
@lucas1 And in your tiny tidy world, engineering and politics belong in separate categories that could never possibly bleed into one another. Gotcha.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
No, Stallman used a perfectly well-understood sense of the word "free" (free as in speech) as the basis of an easily defensible ideology
No he didn't. The "software freedoms" have nothing to do with freedom of speech. All "free as in speech, not as in beer" really means is "no, I'm not talking about it not costing money". Which is not so much a definition, as it is a clarification that you're not using any other other definition the person might have thought of. But his definition of free has as little to do with free speech as it has with free beer.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
No, Stallman used a perfectly well-understood sense of the word "free" (free as in speech) as the basis of an easily defensible ideology, then sought to employ a legal hack to make that ideology survive and spread.
Free speech means that the government can't suppress/persecute/prosecute individuals because of their ideas. So free software means that the government can't suppress/persecute/prosecute based on software usage?
-
@flabdablet Nope I didn't say that. I am expressing a problem with someone deliberately making them intermingle when it isn't necessarily appropriate and there are better options available if you care about sharing and share alike.
The same person thinks that people that can't code are fucking "robots" and thinks "paedophilia" is okay under some circumstances (probably the ones he defines for himself because he can't find a wife).
-
@lucas1 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Why don't you make your next argument a mime?
-
@flabdablet Not going to watch it. Like arguments through music videos I am going to assume you don't have anything valid to say.
-
@lucas1 There is no poetry in your poor benighted soul.
-
@flabdablet No I suppose not.
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
And yet their software is full of bugs
All software is full of bugs, but you and I fundamentally disagree on what "bug" means so I don't know that we can have a meaningful conversation here.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
using the @Weng manoeuvre.
I read this as "the wang manoeuvre" which I much prefer.
INB4:
-
@Grunnen said in How did you start hating opensource?:
though you can't sell that feature for money
You absolutely can sell GPL software for money. Your first customer becomes your first potential competitor.
If you want to see how malicious compliance with the GPL looks, look up Sveasoft.
-
In this thread:
@everybody STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE GPL
@everybody (deliberately?) misunderstands what the word "free" means when it doesn't apply to monetary cost
@lucas1 hits the bottle hard (again) then goes on an internet crusade (again)
@lucas1 may be an alcoholic
-
@Yamikuronue said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Hi, novelist here.
Hi novelist. I didn't intend to trivialise the work that goes into a piece of writing any more than I trivialised the work that goes into software. Indeed, in software there's more than just source code, there's design documents, requirements gathering, the history of changes that lead to the end result, etc. But none of that is what I meant.
If I take a piece of software and I want to modify it, it's pretty much impossible without the source code and build toolchain. If I want to modify a novel, I already have all of the words in the novel and I can change them or add my own. That's not to say the words will be good, just like if I'm a poor programmer the software I modify won't be good, but in a book or other writing I have access to the book in the same form the original author uses to modify it: The words on the page.
-
@Kian Well, on one level we ought to note that RMS effectively won this particular argument: there's a vibrant community based around sharing code. It's not the whole of software development, but it's there and it's not going away. Some of that community follow RMS's ideals fairly closely, others are a bit more distant (due to different “political” goals) but that's not a catastrophe. There's certainly more people who bear in mind what he wanted to achieve than use his licenses.
OTOH, while I'll grant that some of his points are fine, other things said by RMS really annoy me, as do some of his actions. I make (some of) my code freely available to others because I choose to, because I want them to have access to stuff that is written to be as right as possible. I'm very happy when others use my code — it's great for stroking that e-peen! — yet I'm under no illusions about how little money I'd make if I tried to sell the code, and I don't think I should have the right to force them to choose to license things the same I do. RMS's position is that it is important to force such things, and that the definition of “derived work” needs to be interpreted very widely. That is very much not my opinion.
-
@another_sam said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If I take a piece of software and I want to modify it, it's pretty much impossible without the source code and build toolchain. If I want to modify a novel, I already have all of the words in the novel and I can change them or add my own. That's not to say the words will be good, just like if I'm a poor programmer the software I modify won't be good, but in a book or other writing I have access to the book in the same form the original author uses to modify it: The words on the page.
That's why applications created using scripting languages like Python or Javascript are a fairly good idea. You've got the application? You can (theoretically) modify it. The notions you're talking about are actually more similar than you think.
-
@another_sam said in How did you start hating opensource?:
in a book or other writing I have access to the book in the same form the original author uses to modify it: The words on the page.
In the case of novels based on extensive world-building, like the Middle Earth or Ice and Fire series, it's arguable that you don't. Tolkien had been building libraries of unpublished notes for twenty years before the release of The Hobbit.