On 2022-09-12 at 14:50, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 9/12/2022 1:58 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2022-09-12 at 13:47, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: >>> I wish to merely point out that what is often said about the >>> advantages and disadvantages of free, open-source software that >>> is maintained by volunteers is true: >>> >>> An advantage is that the user has full access to the source code >>> and is free to fix problems if the official releases have >>> unpatched bugs but this of course costs time and resources >>> devoted to solving problems that are not fixed promptly in the >>> official release. A disadvantage is that often the priorities of >>> the developers who release free, open source software are not >>> always the same as the priorities of any particular user, so >>> there is no guarantee that the developers of free, open source >>> software will ever get around to fixing a problem that might be >>> causing trouble for some subset of users of the software who very >>> often just stop using the free, open source software and return >>> to proprietary software that just works for them without a big >>> hassle or effort to keep it working well and securely. >> >> I am inclined to dispute one aspect of this characterization. >> >> That which you cite here as a disadvantage is only a disadvantage >> (relative to proprietary software) if the proprietary software >> does, as you say, "just work for them". >> >> It is equally possible (if not more) to find that a given piece of >> proprietary software does not meet your needs (because the >> priorities of its developers, or at least the people who pay them, >> do not match your priorities). >> >> If that happens, you don't even have the option of falling back to >> hack the source and run your own version; you're effectively stuck. >> As I understand matters, that is in fact the reason Free Software >> was invented in the first place. >> >> With access to the source and appropriate license guaranteeing you >> the right to modify it (et cetera), if the priorities of the >> developers don't match yours you do at least have the possibility >> of going in and fixing it yourself - whether as a patch to go >> upstream, or a public fork, or even just a local fork. With >> proprietary software, you don't have that option. >> >> As such, not only is this not a disadvantage unique to Free >> Software, it's a disadvantage that exists even *worse* with >> proprietary software. > > I agree OSS that works well is much better than proprietary software, > because it makes a software solution that works well accessible to > all the users. That's not the argument I was making, though. The argument I was making is that when OSS software (or at least Free Software - FLOSS, if you want an acronym) doesn't work well, you have the option to fix it, whereas when proprietary software doesn't work well, you don't have that option. > The disadvantage is that in practice, OSS does not always work as > well and is sometimes more buggy than proprietary software And sometimes the reverse is true. Or sometimes *both* don't work well. Or sometimes both *do* work well. Disadvantage is *relative*; one thing can be at an advantage or disadvantage over another. The things you're citing as disadvantages of OSS software are not unique or exclusive to OSS software; they can happen just as easily and as well with proprietary software. As such, they are not a disadvantage of OSS vs. proprietary software; advantages or disadvantages can only manifest in *differences*. > when, for example, the developers and maintainers are unwilling or > unable to fix bugs or add features and the users do not have the > ability to fix the problems or convince the developers to fix the > problems, That happens at least as much with proprietary software. At least with FLOSS software, you're more likely to have the ability to contact the developers at all, and the developers are less likely to be subject to restraints that would prohibit them from making a particular change even if they wanted to. The rest of your response is getting into fields I'm not interested in trying to address at present; my focus in my reply was entirely on the point of whether or not the things you're alleging are actually a disadvantage for FLOSS as compared against proprietary software, and the rest of your points don't seem to address that focus. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature