He’s simply making the case that as things stand, open source doesn’t enable people to do much with the code if they aren’t part of the project itself.
For the most part that seems true. Why is it such a problem for him to say it?
The lack of documentation is also a problem with specific projects only, not a widespread F/LOSS issue. And again, if the project lacks in this area, you have the means to improve it.
As for projects being difficult for newcomers; yes, this is an issue. But it's one you'll also encounter when approaching _any_ codebase, where you'll find it takes time and effort to understand and contribute a meaningful change. If you're not a programmer experienced in a particular tech stack, then it's obvious the barrier to entry will be even higher.
None of these issues are specific to F/LOSS, so the post reads like a rant from an entitled user. The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays.
And another benefit of F/LOSS: just because a project is inaccessible to person A, person B might find it easy to contribute, which encourages a community to exist, from which everyone ultimately benefits.
> The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays.
By this logic, FOSS is always impervious to criticism because non FOSS is worse.
That’s not an argument against the premise of the article.
F/LOSS projects have plenty to criticize, like any other project. The major difference is that they provide more freedoms, where these issues can be fixed by external contributors. Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.
This is just not a logical reading of his argument. He is saying FOSS is necessary but not sufficient. His argument can clearly only apply to FOSS and doesn’t apply to other kinds of software.
> Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.
Except that’s not what he’s saying. You are responding to the title of the piece but not that argument it makes.
He’s saying FOSS is not enough to empower people in general to hack on software and bend it to their will.
It’s not clear what you mean by ‘entitled’ in this context.
There is no other interpretation. "not enough" implies there should be MORE, which is a requirement. The requirement is never elucidated. This is a Mazouz gripe post for OSS issues that are not unknown, and provides no insight.
> open source doesn’t enable people to do much with the code if they aren’t part of the project itself
All code requires effort to utilize. Proposing that OSS should have some additional (hand-wave whatever you imagine) requirement lowers the effort to utilize it in some way and that result differs for each program. Imaging OSS code that simply does not compile. What more can you ask? Homogenization of code is a Sisyphean endeavor. The best we have to a uniform interface is source-code text.
Yes it is. At the top of the article he says:
> People will often claim that since X is Free and Open Source Software, every user of X is enabled to hack on it and bend it to their will.
Which is basically the same goal as Alan Kay had for smalltalk systems. Why is it so controversial to say we haven’t reached this goal?
> > People will often claim that since X is Free and Open Source Software, every user of X is enabled to hack on it and bend it to their will.
The requirement is never elucidated, stands. "bend it to their will" is not a qualitative or actionable statement, which is impressive hand-waving.
Nothing about this is related to Alan Kay.
Here is one of many places where Alan Kay talks about making programming available to everyone.
It’s a good starting point for work exploring the deeper idea of enabling people to ‘bend software to their wills’.
As for looking a gift horse in the mouth, you may not be aware of how much that sentiment devalues FOSS. The implication being that as long as it’s free, it doesn’t matter how bad it is.
As long as it’s free, it doesn’t matter how bad it is, because at least you're giving others a chance to make it better, INCLUDING improving the code quality to enable less experienced developers, or even laypeople, to collaborate. No one should expect you to take that burden upon yourself. If all developers did everything right on the first try, we wouldn't need open source.
It’s strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.
It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.
On the contrary, that would make open source far more valuable because it would be easier for people to add to or modify, and a better example for newcomers.
The author is not attacking the existence of open source. He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.
Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.
> It's strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...
> It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.
Moving the goalpost to another hand-wavy quality of "great code", is not meaningful. The fact you think this is some sort of concrete goal (as opposed to a quality about simple utility), is telling.
> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.
That's circumstantial, like most things in life.
You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article. Good luck with whatever.
That clause means that the author of the code isn’t legally liable for defects.
How is this relevant at all to the article? Nobody is talking about legal action.
>> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.
> That's circumstantial, like most things in life.
Obviously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, nor that we shouldn’t discuss it.
> You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article.
Generally when someone complains about an argument being in bad faith it means they are personally invested in defending something they think is under attack. It’s not clear to me what you think you are defending.
In that case, I'm unclear. Is he advocating for OSS devs to do more to make projects inclusive?
Or is he saying that OSS isn't all that, and the code to Asperite might as well be closed, given how much beyond the source code goes into making a software product?