So, you are saying that we should prefer code where it is impossible to have a look at the source because that solves the problem of having to trust the developers of that code?
That's the point of this piece. For any non-trivial edit on a real project with real deadlines the source code is effectively useless, because no one has the time, the resources, or possibly even the inclination to fix bugs, do full-coverage testing, or make custom modifications.
So you have to take the internals on trust. Which is a ridiculous situation when so many packages are created as hobby projects with - literally - no guarantee of performance or reliability.
I realise it's hard for FOSS advocates to understand this, because it's a fundamental flaw with the FOSS philosophy. The benefits are "obvious" to crusaders, but the objective reality is that large swathes of FOSS are full of casual or hobby code that barely works, has gaping security vulns, and/or is nowhere close to being robust enough for production.
"Make software simpler" is a good goal, but hard to do. Other solutions are also possible. They're hard too. So it goes.
But there will be no solutions at all until the FOSS community starts dealing with professional reality instead of relying on free-to-tinker-without-consequences rhetoric - and understands that there are real problems that need real answers, and not just more "Clap Louder" and "At least we're not Microsoft".
You seriously believe this? I mean, it's so obviously nonsensical I can hardly believe you are seriously making that point. With FOSS, you have the option to look at the code, with closed source you don't. And you are seriously saying that that is the same level of openness?
Also, even if it were true: How is that relevant? FOSS is just as bad as closed source, therefore you should exclude FOSS? How does that follow?!
> So you have to take the internals on trust.
So, I can not look at FOSS code? Like, you are telling me it is impossible for me to look at the code that I am in fact looking at when selecting code to use for something? I mean, really? That is your point?
And the solution then is to not use FOSS, because then you don't have to take the internals on trust?
>I realise it's hard for FOSS advocates to understand this, because it's a fundamental flaw with the FOSS philosophy. The benefits are "obvious" to crusaders, but the objective reality is that large swathes of FOSS are full of casual or hobby code that barely works, has gaping security vulns, and/or is nowhere close to being robust enough for production.
>And the solution then is to not use FOSS, because then you don't have to take the internals on trust?
I think the point is to realize FOSS is not a utopia and has tradeoffs like everything else.
But that wasn't what this thread was about. The statement that I was responding to above was this:
>> or exclude FOSS when working commercially.
I.e., that there isn't a tradeoff, but that the solution to shortcomings of some FOSS that aren't unique to FOSS in any way is to not use FOSS at all.
And that was then defended using equally nonsensical logic.
So, noone here is claiming that FOSS is utopia. But people are implying that proprietary software is. Which I am asking people to justify. So far, nobody did.
It's irrelevant because this was about FOSS vs. closed source, not about commercial licencing vs. noncommercial licencing. Even if commercial licencing were the solution, that says nothing about whether the commercial licence should be FOSS or closed source.
And it is also irrelevant because there are broadly the same legal remedies to malfeasance in all cases. If you are breaking the law, you are sill breaking the law if you are publishing your source code, and you are still breaking the law if your are doing it non-commercially.
And in so far as you mean liability for defects rather than malfeasance, it is obviously nonsense that there are any generally applicable effective legal remedies against terrible proprietary code if you look at the real-world quality of products in the market. You might be able to put together a contract that helps with that, but (a) that is far from the norm and (b) is obviously still irrelevant to whether the code should be open or closed.
And also, that does not at all mean that the utility breaks down. Back in the day, it was normal for devices to come with schematics. Like, if you bought a TV, the schematic was included. Almost noone who owned a TV could read schematics. But the schematics were still useful to the owner, because those schematics were what enabled you to take your broken TV to any independent repair business of your choice and have them fix it at a competetive price.
You can profit from the wide availability of knowledge without having to learn it all yourself. If there are ten competing car repair businesses in your city that all understand how to fix your car, that is better for you than the manufacturer having a monopoly on repairing your car, even if you don't have the slightest clue how your car works.
Quite a lot of contributions are need driven - client project needing something digging into code and fixing it. It is called "scratching own itch". The reason for popularity of oss libraries was that comertial ones had historicall low motivation to improve after point of sale, especially when it comes to performance. That is why you see a lot of oss targeted at developers and very little at general public. Closed source libraries were unable to compete not just because of price, but because business of selling libraries does not value quality.
2. It’s about legal responsibility and recourse.
How is that relevant?
> 2. It’s about legal responsibility and recourse.
How is that relevant?
Just because not everybody has access != a person inside a gated area doesn't get to see. You made that leap.
If you are building software on top of software that carries no guarantees then you are liable unless you also somehow make no guarantees. Are you able to sell software without guarantees? Maybe?
Well, I guess that was somewhat of a leap, but it doesn't really make a difference to the argument: The point is that they are suggesting that preferring code that fewer people can look at somehow solves a problem.
> If you are building software on top of software that carries no guarantees then you are liable unless you also somehow make no guarantees.
Well, yeah? But what does that have to do with FOSS? Neither does FOSS imply that there are no guarantees, nor does proprietary software imply that there are guarantees. Hence: What is the relevance?
The only difference between FOSS and proprietary software in this regard is that with FOSS you have the option to do an audit yourself and offer guarantees on that basis without creating a huge unknown risk for yourself, or you could possibly buy auditing services on the free market that come with some sort of guarantee from a third party. There is no option that you have with proprietary software that is somehow impossible with FOSS, which is why the suggestion that not using FOSS for commercial projects somehow solves a problem is strange at best.
> Are you able to sell software without guarantees? Maybe?
Well, given the tons of massively broken proprietary commercial software out there? Yeah, obviously you can?