- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- technology
cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/113520
Some quotes
Twenty years ago, the phrase ‘open source’ had a definite meaning in computing which is quite different from the sense it has now…
Why is Free Software so Bad in Quality?
Most free software is poor or unusable. This is heavily disguised because protagonists like to use the isolated points fallacy to sell the idea FOSS is great.
…
…if you’re lucky enough to attract such a team you need to keep them together. And for that you need capital and that is exactly where FOSS falls down. This is the main reason why so much FOSS is of poor quality.1
FOSS was Built Out of Corporation and Tax Money
Open Office was derived from Star Office which was the product of StarDivision and Sun Microsystems. It was not put together by a hacker living in his mom’s spare bedroom…
Emacs was supported financially by people working at the MIT AI Lab, which means that it was funded by Uncle Sam…
Linux is…mostly a copy of Unix, despite howls to the contrary it is deeply unoriginal, being based on ideas going back to the time of the Vietnam War. These ideas were in turn evolved within Bell Labs by its creators who were also well-paid professionals. Linus Torvalds really copied an idea whose basis had been funded by university and corporation money and without that basis there would have been no Linux.
Free Open Source is not often Innovative
…lot of FOSS is poorly written reverse-engineered copies of existing commercial software. Innovation is hard; it requires time and brains. Reverse engineering is a powerful disincentive to innovation since anybody who does spend R&D capital in innovation, can have their ideas reverse engineered.
…
A good start would be Brandolini’s principle of bullshit, stating that “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.”
That does not add useful info to the discussion, quite the contrary. I prefer having insightful discussion when people have different views so that maybe we can learn some pertinent info instead.
It does add meaningful info to the discussion: it shows why people would be less-than-eager to reply to a post to contradict it. It also shows that good faith discussion, trying to achieve a consensus (or at the very least better understanding) should start with simple and basal claims, otherwise the other side will not answer.
Now analyse your own post, and notice how many claims you did to chain your argumentation:
You’re also making a definition mess, for example at the end you’re contrasting “open source” with “commercial”, even if both attributes are orthogonal to each other. (i.e. you can have non-commercial closed source, and commercial open source). There’s also the issue with “free-as-free-speech software” and “open source” being conflated together.
I won’t bother defending free and open source here because, frankly, I’m more of a lurker than a debater, but this is not the way to introduce a discussion.
Just in case, I did not write that piece. I just found it interesing so I shared it. It is interesting you point those out, but I cannot do anything about the way it was wrote; still I find many of the arguments to be relevant.
So all I wanted were strong counterarguments, but nobody was able to provide such.
Also on your points, it seems to me the author assumed some knowledge from the reader; indeed should have provided more references. For example for the 2 first points
Then my bad on claiming that those were “your” claims, what I said should apply to the original author.
My point still stands though. Those questions are still better addressed individually; for example, gathering some data on software quality and contrasting open and closed source, including the reference that you linked in #2. Then I bet that you’ll get better arguments, as the matter is more approachable for discussion.