Hacker News Reader

Comment by rimantas | Hacker News Reader

  > but given iOS is such a closed locked system, it is
  > meaningless for users

As if it is any different for non-programmers on any systems, open or not.

View on HN

No, that's wrong. "Non-programmers" won't be modifying code themselves, but they still want to be able to install the modified code. Things like "try this version and see if it fixes your bug" are impossible on iOS unless the recipient is a registered Apple developer.

This is why iOS is perceived as so hostile to open source. It's basically impossible to have a "community" of users for your open project other than a tiny cabal of professionals.

You don't need to be a programmer to install open source software on a computer. You do need some level of technical literacy but nowhere near that required to write software.

Sure but then the only distinction is price, and this just becomes about getting stuff for free.

No, the difference is knowing that you're using software that encourages software sharing, rather than software hoarding.

You mean software that encourages money hoarding? If that's your preference, then go for it.

Personally I'd prefer to know I'm using software that encourages money sharing.

I get the feeling that you have no idea what we are talking about in this thread. "mattl" said "software sharing", and you immediately assume that he meant "money sharing"??

I get the feeling that you didn't read what I wrote. I made no such assumption.

Mattl likes to use open source software because he thinks it encourages software sharing. I actually agree with that, and have non-trivially contributed to and consumed open source software in my work.

However I don't agree that all software should be open source because that discourages people from sharing money with programmers.

What I object to is not the idea of open source, which is a great thing. It's the fundamentalism and moralizing against anything which does not completely fit some idealogue's definition, and yet which also provides great value.

Not at all, it's also about preference and the very nature of ownership. Imagine that Ford cars had radios which only allowed you to listen to rock and roll radio stations. And GM cars had radios which only allowed you to listen to country music stations.

Might you not prefer to tear out this weird factory radio and replace it with a radio that tuned into whatever damn radio station you want to listen to?

I might like my car to allow me to install a chesterfield sofa as the driver's seat, but I don't complain that ford has locked down my choice of seats into a walled garden. Presumably you'd complain that you'd like to be able to sit in 'any damn seat you please' too.

Well actually, you can very easily buy aftermarket seats, tires, mufflers, radios, or almost anything you please on your car. It's the opposite of the phone ecosystem.

You can't fit a chesterfield sofa because the chassis isn't designed for that. Exactly like the phone ecosystem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com