Why is g obsessed with open source?

You realize that red hat is Free software and they make a killing selling support, right? You do know that an increasing percentage of open source development is paid for, right? Of course not, you're just baiting.

>Have to wade through people making buggy, poorly designed software so they can get paid for support
Sure sounds like it beats the proprietary model

>You realize that red hat is Free software and they make a killing selling support, right?

Are they selling you support or are they selling you the software? Because support would be a service and due to it's nature you couldn't apply any of your flawed software freedoms to it. What are they selling you?

>You do know that an increasing percentage of open source development is paid for, right?

Do they pay the developers for creating it or are the users paying for getting it? Because those two are totally different and have totally different consequences. This is how you know that you have no argument, because you have to resort to being disingenuous and weasel-wording some stuff that's tangentially related but actually a totally different thing. Why don't you show me a piece of free sofwtare that actually costs money and is somewhat successful? You can't. You freetards claim that it's great because it's free as in freedom, but the only reason some people even use it is because it's free as in beer.

>paying for support
Lol just google it

lol it's support for enterprise not how to install screenfetch.

Actually, freedom 2 and 3 are for people that don't know how to program. They allow people to organize themselves in groups to alter software.

>You say "buy the software", "purchase a game", but you fail to realize that nobody would ever pay for something that they can get for free from other people who share it.

It's a business problem, does not allow anyone to revoke my rights. The companies must find another way to profit.

>proprietary software achieves a higher quality than free crap
Surely you're joking.

I've seen people struggle to install chrome on Ubuntu so I guess some people should just pay for support

The quotes were meant to (you).

I'm a normie relative to the rest of Cred Forums and this is why I like open source

a) If the original program doesn't exactly suit my needs there is bound to be a forked alternative that does.

Example: vendor Android ROMs vs CyanogenMod and its' derivitives.

b) Open source means that I can be fairly confident somebody smarter than me has audited the code to ensure that no funny business is going on. Conversely if they haven't released source and it isn't a commercial product it can be seen as a bit shady.

Example: a lot of CAF based Android browsers haven't been open sourced despite the CAF code base being open source. If they're not making money off of ads or sales on the Play Store, then

i) why haven't they released source and
ii) where are they getting their money from?

As they're not willing to share their modified source base we can only assume something fishy is going on.

>Surely you're joking.

Photoshop, Autocad, After Effects, et cetera.

All have dozens of free clones and none of them comes even close to the proprietary version. Then somebody points that out and they decide to fork the most popular one and make another clone that also fails to have the same power level. Just face it, free software is trash and not suited for capitalism. If you wanted a license that allowed you to examine the software for safety reasons but were also interesting in using capitalism to create great software, then that would be the BSD. The BSD is the true free non-socialist license for real men.

Forking always makes it worse

I've said this elsewhere. Most of Cred Forums doesn't actually understand why open source is a good thing, and they rabidly champion its cause for completely wrong reasons, like the belief that an open source makes soft

makes software more secure (it doesn't)*

>Photoshop, Autocad, After Effects, et cetera.
That's the exception, not the rule. Also, they are the defacto standard because of companies lobbying.

>Just face it, free software is trash and not suited for capitalism.
If this is true, means that capitalism does not respect my rights.

>If you wanted a license that allowed you to examine the software for safety reasons but were also interesting in using capitalism to create great software, then that would be the BSD

I'm interested in having my rights respected, not in praising a production system that I(you) clearly don't understand.

>The BSD is the true free non-socialist license for real men.
If socialism(which you also don't understand) is the only way to have my rights respected, then I'm a socialist.

It actually does. But let's remember free software != open source.

>It actually does. But let's remember free software != open source.
No, it doesn't. There is nothing that makes open source software of a non-trivial size inherently more secure.

Truthfully, the young folks who frequent these boards and other tech sites are socially inept and cannot fit into mainstream society and it bothers them. So much so that a defense mechanism is to embrace the alternative (and the more obscure the better) and pretend its better than the mainstream so they feel validated. This is similar to the mindset most teens go though with music--listen to shit that sucks but act like its cool thinking it'll make them better (again, a coping mechanism to avoid the reality that they are a no body).

The problem is that you think you're entitled to some "rights" over someone else's creation. You are not. If you don't want to use proprietary software it's your loss; feel free to stick to crappy subpar made-by-literally-who alternatives, but don't think that you're any better than most SJWs and entitled types.

What is your story?

>No, it doesn't. There is nothing that makes open source software of a non-trivial size inherently more secure.

Non-trivial meaning big, right? Well in the open source model the goal is always software quality, not release date, not keeping the user in check.

>The problem is that you think you're entitled to some "rights" over someone else's creation.

I'm. It's running on my computer and I acquired it by legal means. It is mine.

With software there are only two options the user controls the software or the software controls the user. If the later, I don't have control over my computer either.

So you mean that the principles of free software are wrong. I would like to hear your explanation for that.

You stupid or something? I ain't into open source (you can easily discern that from my post) yet you think I'm going to freely share my story? Fuck that! Pay me! There's money to be made, son!

>Most of you can't even program or read code.
But I can and do both

>Why is g obsessed with open source?
A number of reasons:

1. It tends to work better
2. It lets me fix shit myself
3. It lets me change stuff I don't like
4. It makes it easier for me to figure out whether there's a botnet involved or not
5. It gives me the ability to view the code quality, which to me is the #1 indicator of the software's bugginess and amount of security vulnerabilities
6. It lets me contribute my own improvements
7. The developers of FOSS are usually far more responsive to the community. If I open an issue on github and describe the problem, I'll practically always get a reasonable reply from the developer. Proprietary software developers tend to try and silence the community instead (bad press).

This thread isn't about the principals of free. Its about why you pleebs who'll TRUTHFULLY NEVER amount to ANYTHING remotely meaningful in life spend so much time/effort/energy promoting open source with more vigor than religious zealots spew their beliefs. And for what???

Exactly... its a way to bridge the painfully awkward gap between birth and death for the majority of you. Its not about 'free' or 'better', its about an identity that you all lack but desperately seek.

If I want to perform an audit of open source software, I can do that. I don't need to sign some bullshit NDA, I don't need to reverse engineer some binary blob, and i don't need to worry about some company threatening me with litigation or refusing to hand over the source for political reasons. Fuck you and your proprietary bullshit. You're literally holding back human progress for profit.

>If this is true, means that capitalism does not respect my rights.

This is just obnoxious semantic blathering. Pointlessly reframing to no actual end.

When you purchase proprietary software, you are agreeing to a contract. If you don't like the terms of the contract, then you are FREE to not enter it.

>open source means that I can be fairly confident somebody smarter than me has audited the code to ensure that no funny business is going on.
What's Heartbleed?

What if anything makes it worth the yearly licensing fee worth it for a non-corporate user?
I'm not interested in support.

>This thread isn't about the principals of free.
It actually is.

> Its about why you pleebs who'll TRUTHFULLY NEVER amount to ANYTHING remotely meaningful in life
Speak for yourself.

> Its about why you pleebs who'll TRUTHFULLY NEVER amount to ANYTHING remotely meaningful in life

Free software != open source

> And for what???
To have my rights respected.

>Exactly... its a way to bridge the painfully awkward gap between birth and death for the majority of you.

Having my rights respected is indeed a way to make this gap more pleasurable.

> Its not about 'free' or 'better'
It is about freedom, and you haven't demonstrated why you disagree with it, just cursed me.

> its about an identity that you all lack but desperately seek.
Speak for yourself.

Rights are not optional and one might not be coerced to opt out of some right.

What are ALL the MILLIONS of spyware, malaware, viruses and trojan horses proprietary software have?

>millions of spyware, malware, viruses...
Why are you clicking the first link you get on Google search?

>Rights are not optional and one might not be coerced to opt out of some right.

Nobody is coercing anyone to opt out of anything.

If you don't agree to the terms of a contract, then you don't get the benefit of the contract.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. What I'm trying to get across is that open source in and of itself has zero effect on software security, and in cases where people mistake it for something it isn't it can actually have a net negative effect by working as a placebo. Proper security practices ensure security, not the open or closed nature of the code. Without a full and thorough audit, you cannot make meaningful statements about your software's security.

>If I want to perform an audit of open source software, I can do that
The key word here is "can". That is what my entire point comes down to. Until you *actually* perform a meaningful audit, there is absolutely no difference between open source and a black box. A lack of proper security practices is how vulnerabilities can appear in major open software in the first place.

Defensive deflection... the M.O. and summation of open sourcers. Remember to always stay one step ahead of reality cause if you ever realize how wasteful your life was promoting open source, it may cause you to rationalize other areas of your life...

Another thing I forgot to mention

8. Open-source software is usually designed by developers for developers. Closed-source software is usually designed for users. Since I'm a developer, I prefer the developer design to the “user” design.

As opposed to the winshills and macfags that have a superiority complex about their OS's?
Leave the psychology to the professionals kid.

The open source definition pretty much contains all the 4 freedoms. Unless you mean another meaning of course.

Free software doesn't have this, proprietary does. Universal backdoors are also a form of malaware/spyware and they come in a lot of proprietary software.

>Proper security practices ensure security, not the open or closed nature of the code.Without a full and thorough audit, you cannot make meaningful statements about your software's security.

I tend to disagree. The proportion of malaware/spyware in proprietary software is huge in relation to open source.

>Defensive deflection
Not really, I presented clear and concise arguments and made no ad-hominem, contrary to (you).

> Remember to always stay one step ahead of reality cause if you ever realize how wasteful your life was promoting open source, it may cause you to rationalize other areas of your life...

I'm defending my rights and *free software* NOT *open source*. You have failed to demonstrate why I'm wrong and is using pop psychology to try to humiliate me.

The meaning of open source I'm familiar with is “source code available”. That covers none of the four freedoms as defined by There's no guarantee that you're able to run, modify, redistribute or redistribute modifications to others.

MPV is the prime example of this, and the reason why I think someone is gonna end up making something "as-good" and will end up more popular.
>1. It tends to work better
lol
>7. The developers of FOSS are usually far more responsive to the community
MAYBE and IF, the project is active.

It does not, user. There are many licenses that are open source but not free software.

Funny you should mention mpv, since I'm actually an mpv developer. No surprise that it's a prime example of my own ideology.

>MAYBE and IF, the project is active.
I don't need to speak in theoreticals and maybes because I report bugs to free software on a near daily basis. I've never ever had a bug I reported get ignored in my many years of doing this.

was never debating anyone about the principals of free let alone free vs open. stop with the straw man. realize you're wasting your life promoting shit that won't make a difference.

ITT, butthurt retards furiously defending programs made by people who dont actually let you do whatever you want with software you legally paid for. It reminds me of people who put stickers of brand name items on their car, giving free advertising for companies who dont give two fucks about you as long as you keep coughing up the cash.
If you seriously defend proprietary software then you are fucking retarded. I bought a house . ill paint it what ever colour i fucking like and ill resell it, give it away or lease it to whom ever i like. Nobody can stop me. I have the floor plans, so i know exactly how it was built and i can make what ever changes i like. I should have the same rights with my software.

>was never debating anyone about the principals of free let alone free vs open.
Well, I can't debate this, because i can't really prove you made or not a comment.

> stop with the straw man. realize you're wasting your life promoting shit that won't make a difference.

Please demonstrate how defending rights in the 3th industrial revolution is a waste of time. None of the other times people defended rights it came out to be a bad deal.

>look dude I go to the top open source active githubs and get a reply on my issue
Congratulations
>since I'm actually an mpv developer
You sure are user.
This is the most idiotic way of thinking.

>>This is the most idiotic way of thinking.

Didnt try too hard with that one did you.

Why are you obsessed with democracy?

Most of you don't even vote in mid-term elections.

No point.

>Well, I can't debate this, because i can't really prove you made or not a comment.

Like that stopped you earlier? pfft...

>Please demonstrate how defending rights in the 3th industrial revolution is a waste of time. None of the other times people defended rights it came out to be a bad deal.

moving the goal post... you're becoming pretty worthless. why engage when you'll just deflect, use straw man tactics, and go off tangents. Not to mention this '3th' industrial revolution isn't what you think... Ignorance is bliss! Enjoy your way of life.

You want to know something about you yanks?
I actually admire how voting is not compulsory over there.
I take my voting seriously here in oz, but you must vote. If you didnt have to vote here, then the parties who truely deserve to get in power will because it gets rid of the majority or the idiot factor.

But there is. I labeled you for the idiot that you are.

>Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
>HURR DURR
>Hey mate, do you have the new battlefield? I would like to play gaym.
>No, but here's a free copy of leenucks tetris 28.0, let's play that instead.
>HURR DURR
Fuck you.
Real devs only work for money, sad but true.

>That's the exception, not the rule.
It is the rule you dumbfuck. 99% of the worlds leading software is proprietary, capitalists stick together to get more rich. Every non retard can see why that leads to them being superior.

People whos age consists of a single digit warm my heart.

>Like that stopped you earlier? pfft...
I only replied to comments trying to follow a line of thought. If I say now that some comment is yours, you could say its not.

>moving the goal post... you're becoming pretty worthless. why engage when you'll just deflect, use straw man tactics, and go off tangents.

Your point is that fighting for free software is a autistic thing only teenagers do to get attention and has no real meaning, right?(to which you presented no arguments)

> Not to mention this '3th' industrial revolution isn't what you think...

1th Industrial revolution: Automation of factories and fields(first and second sectors)

2nd Industrial revolution: Fordism, more automation on the second sector

3th industrial revolution: Automation of the 3th sector, computers.

>Ignorance is bliss!
I disagree.

>Congratulations
t-thanks!

'open' sounds more nice than 'closed' :^)

Let's define "leading" as the one that has better quality. Actually, most of the mission critical software is open source and free software, like every non retard can see.

Let's define "leading" as more used. Accounting for cell phones and embedded devices, most software is open source and free software.

>capitalists stick together to get more rich. Every non retard can see why that leads to them being superior.

They stick to what is more lucrative in the short term, with no respect to our rights.

>most of the mission critical software is open source and free software
Name some.

github.com/nasa

literal mission critical

I'm 36 you faggot. I'm using freeware as much as I can but it just don't cut it for professional use.

Can you even remotely calculate anything? People that earn 100 bucks an hour tend to pay for proprietary stuff that saves them 6 minutes a day, because it pays of in short time. Easy isn't it?

Apollo 11 flight computer :^)

github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11

GNU/Linux, SELinux, apache, nginx, iptables, pf sense, open bsd, Hadoop, MySQL, PostgreSQL, JVM and many more.

$10 says your bank's online banking stuff runs on Linux

The Nasa is a gubberment institution that's not dependent on being economically successful, they have no idea how to calculate shit.

t. Pajeet worried about his job

Nice argument.
Like i said, people whos age consists of a single digit warms my heart.

You bought a bus ticket, so that entitles you to paint the bus and sell it?

>$10 says your bank's online banking stuff runs on Linux
It actually runs on asp server pages. Next.

Posting random linux bullshit that all aren't mission critical, while big companies use proprietary versions of said shit like everything the big networking companies produce.

No big company uses pfsense, only people who want to save a few dollares.

>nice argument
>posts the same shit as before again
Are you 12 or what?
Give your mom her smartphone back.

No. I dont own the bus idiot. Ask the owner.
I dont ride the bus because it isnt free software, so i bought a car.....
See where im heading with this?

>I should have the same rights with my software.
You don't buy software you idiot. You buy the right to use it, that is called a license. Whether or not the creator grants you any more rights besides that is his choice only, as it is your choice to end your licensing contract and use something else instead.

And again.....
Quality rebuttals.

>I dont ride the bus because it isnt free software, so i bought a car.....
And your car needs to follow certain rules, as do you while driving, otherwise you get arrested.

Your point again?

Same with software, you don't own it. If your autism prevents you from using anything you don't fully own, well, your loss. Good luck traveling to another continent without a plane, though.

>It actually runs on asp server pages. Next.
You can't be that dumb.

You are literally retarded. Its not random linux bullshit it's actually some of the more used softwares in the world. Most of them are not even linux specific. You have clearly no idea of what you are talking about.

Profit is not a excuse for violating my rights. Also, there are successful companies with free software products.

>active server pages server pages

>Profit is not a excuse for violating my rights
Fuck off you hippie. Companys don't care about rights. They care about money.

Oh? And how is that different to the contracts you sign to buy a house?
You know, to the banks if you applied for a loan or land rates and insurance and shit like that.

Yes but within "rules" i can do what i want.
These rules only apply to safety reasons and to line government coffers.

Opensource cam app on google appstore
>looks like a mess, ugly as fuck ui, makes worse picture than other apps

Yeah sure you can tweak is as much as you want and shit, but i want a camera app which is easy to use and makes good pictures because its a phone not a dslr and im not a professional photographer

That's why rights are protected by law. I guess you think people that are against slavery or for a minimum wage are also hippies.

Go back to shagging drop bears, your opinion isn't worth a dollary-do.

You do own free software.

One example vs literally thousand of examples. Also the discussion is about free software, not open source.

The words of failure.

With computers, there is just two options, the user controls the computer or the computer controls the user. I own the computer, therefore I control it. The only way to control it is with free software.

Oh well im out it was nice arguing with you proprietards.
But, like always you start a fight, and turn to water.

Is GPL free software? Because you certainly don't own it, since the license places restrictions on what you can do with it.

Read the op you dumb fag

Yes one example but its true to the majority of the opensource vs nor os shit

You mean as in it being compulsory to supply the source code to the next person? Thats a condition that im totally comfortable with. And i do own it.
If i wrote something of value, id impose the same law.

...

Read the entire thread, dumb fag. Op has already been corrected, what Cred Forums obsess about is free software, not open source.

>its true to the majority of the opensource vs nor os shit

Most of the mission critical software is open source and free software. Most of the server software is free software and open source.

>Most of the mission critical software is open source and free software. Most of the server software is free software and open source.

This is true but most of the consumer-grade open source software is shit.

Android is free software and is the most installed OS of all time. A majority of the world's servers run on GNU/Linux.

There isn't any merit to the "free software is worse" argument anymore. Free software is better for society and is usually better than its proprietary counterparts. Sorry you hate freedom.

let me give you an example on why open source is necessary
recently the developer of a dumper got butthurt
that made him stop developing it because muh feels
now the dumper is hardly working but noone can ever fix it because that bitch will not release the source

now if the source were to be released yeah most of us can´t do shit with it
but there´s always that one guy who continuous the work if enough people care

without open source you get shit you are completely at the whim of some retard

>This is true but most of the consumer-grade open source software is shit.

Assuming this is true, we conclude that:

Where quality and reliance matters the most, free software shines.

Where lobbying and violating rights matter the most, proprietary software shines.

Good night, I have to sleep.

But we must also remember that we as users don't run server software or NASA's mission critical software.

That doesn't mean we don't want the better possible software nor that we want our rights violated.

Exactly. I use open source software when they're better and propretiary when they're better.

>and propretiary when they're better
Basically you use only free software.

But the main point of free software is not that it's better(it is) is that it respects your freedoms.

I don't know about you, but I only use proprietary software when I need to, and usually it's just god awful. Steam and Skype, for example, are just big piles of shit. Adobe software is pretty good, but you need to pay for it. Otherwise I would say most free software is better than proprietary software.

same here

I only use proprietary software when the free alternatives are shitty or nonexistant. for example, graphics drivers. Can't get far on free graphics drivers (sadly)

>adobe software is pretty good
are we talking about the same adobe here? You know, the adobe that makes adobe flash?

Adobe software is "pretty good" in the sense that professionals are usually required to use it. I use GIMP and Inkscape and I don't really miss anything from Photoshop/Illustrator, but I'm no pro.

Since they introduced CC you can't even "own" the software that you pay for, so I hope free software catches up in the pro market soon.

You're deluded.

Krita's coming along quite nicely

Also last time I saw photoshop it was a broken piece of shit that didn't even have UI scaling, so it was unusable on 4K monitors

was a few versions old though (CS4 or something)

I feel like people don't understand that Krita is a digital painting program not a photoshop clone.

I don't understand the difference

To me they're all just as capable of both drawing and editing images

>I would say most free software is better than proprietary software
lol

I can program and read code, but even if I wouldn't there a several advantages to (F)OSS:
- mostly free as in free beer
- lots of niche applications by volunteers which wouldn't exist otherwise because there wouldn't be enough potential customers for a company to do it
- licensing

Just the idea of it being "open" and free to check if there's no malicious code embedded. Spooky Language.

pic related

>Most of you can't even program or read code.
They are called newfags

>C++: This is a great language to start with
sick joke but that's taking it too far man