Source isn't needed, and doesn't tell the whole story anyway. You highly underestimate the skill of the community, and how it only takes one person to find out and spread the news if something is amiss. We are slowly losing our freedom to choose even whom to trust, thanks to this idea that these "multinational corporations" are somehow deities. This sort of paranoic fearmongering is exactly the sort of propaganda that pushes society towards that authoritarian corporate dystopia in which trust is forced by those in power, and which you have no control over. In the context of software of this kind, closed source is bad. > "closed source = bad" style comments are just plain unnecessary Was the decision to go closed-source the result of bad intentions? Perhaps not, as you say they might not be deliberately setting out to deny rights that people value, but my strong reservations remain justified. That's what closed-source software means. I mean, they are denying us the rights to study and improve the software. You're right that detay's reply didn't explain their dismissal, yes. won't install, won't suggest." a rather lazy contribution Then I'm glad I was quick to dismiss the idea of giving their code admin rights on my machine! > for all I know this was made by a bunch of 15 year olds that simply didn't know any better If the developers are beginners/hobbyists and are, bluntly, of such low calibre that they aren't aware of the advantages of Free and Open Source software, I don't see how that's reassuring. This doesn't change my assessment at all. are likely more involved in a social circle of Windows based gamers instead of FOSS folks. > The norm for HN maybe just hasn't reached the authors yet given their home countries and the fact they seem to identify via Steam profiles, i.e. To be clear, I'm not a FOSS purist (I'm writing this from Firefox on Windows 10), but for a tool like this in particular, it should either be FOSS, or direct from Microsoft. Choosing to make it closed-source is bigger than that. There are plenty of things I can shrug off about a software project, such as internal design decisions I disagree with, or using tools and languages that I dislike, or even using a Free and Open Source software licence that I dislike. A point of principle is a fine reason to dismiss something, even in the absence of a practical concern. I dismissed the project the moment I learnt it's closed-source, for the reasons I've given. > I completely agree with the point of principle, just found it odd to simply dismiss a project on it. Passing on closed source freeware is fine as well but attribution of bad intentions or "closed source = bad" style comments are just plain unnecessary imho. If one of the authors had submitted this we could have had a conversation and suggest they open source it, like you've just done, which is absolutely fine. won't install, won't suggest." a rather lazy contribution. While I realize the fundamental difference between this tool and random webapps, products without disclosed source or incentives are cheered on by HN all the time, which is why I found "not open source. We don't know anything about those authors, it's pretty unlikely that this came from a point of explicitly choosing to deny somebody any rights, for all I know this was made by a bunch of 15 year olds that simply didn't know any better. The norm for HN maybe just hasn't reached the authors yet given their home countries and the fact they seem to identify via Steam profiles, i.e. Sure, I completely agree with the point of principle, just found it odd to simply dismiss a project on it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |