If anyone is reading this and considering releasing their own closed-source NPM package, I built a service to help you do that [1].
It also supports Rust, Elixir, Erlang, Ruby, and .NET.
I'm giving up on open source
201–209 of 209 posts
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#202I understand the sentiment for this article, but I disagree with the part about using open source mainly to avoid paying for software. I use open source because I like having the ability to learn how it works. If I can't know how a program works, I can't have control over it. It is not my tool , I am its user . I also just like learning how technology works in general, and non-free software is generally difficult to…
That would be what's usually called "source available + documented" rather than open source
For me, they're both included. I have no qualms with paying for good software if I have the ability to learn how it works and customize it to my liking. What I absolutely loathe, is closed-source that is useful to me, but with obviously lazy design elements that I dont get to customize.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#203I understand the sentiment for this article, but I disagree with the part about using open source mainly to avoid paying for software. I use open source because I like having the ability to learn how it works. If I can't know how a program works, I can't have control over it. It is not my tool , I am its user . I also just like learning how technology works in general, and non-free software is generally difficult to…
That would be what's usually called "source available + documented" rather than open source
That is, if "source-available" means that I can adjust the code to what I want it to be. If not, then it is not what I want.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this were indeed the average attitude, there wouldn't be this big of an outcry with regards to the move from fully open-source to source-available licenses (Mongo/ELK/Hashicorp/etc.)
wrong: source-available means you can look but you can't incorporate/change/copy-paste/get-inspired-by. "look at this wheel, learn but don't make your own". It's a travesty.
Is that really how source-available works? I mean whos stopping me from screenshotting and using tesseract or some other OCR tool to get the actual no-bullshit source code
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said the reason you're using open source isn't because you don't want to pay for software. He's saying the reason corporations use open source IS that they don't want to pay for software, as OP said.
This is what I am saying, no hate on people doing the right thing but most of the corporations love that they can take and give nothing back, its their highest ideal.
Ahhh okay makes sense. Yeah its truly grotesque. But money is a different kind of game. They see OSS as low hanging fruit. Idk if licenses like GPL would keep them at bay, but I think it might be an avenue more OSS developers should go down
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this were indeed the average attitude, there wouldn't be this big of an outcry with regards to the move from fully open-source to source-available licenses (Mongo/ELK/Hashicorp/etc.)
wrong: source-available means you can look but you can't incorporate/change/copy-paste/get-inspired-by. "look at this wheel, learn but don't make your own". It's a travesty.
Don't you ever get inspired by reading good books? You can learn new tricks and apply them elsewhere, and it's much easier than actually contributing to a big open-source project.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the simple truth of it is that the value of software just doesn't translate to a lot of people's day to day. People will spend tons of money more than willingly for access to streaming libraries full of inane, samey bullshit. People will spend $70 to access the latest AAA game, people will spend thousands on well-tuned PC's, people will spend tens of thousands on cars, hundreds of thousands on homes, with var…
A downvoted but an interesting comment. Years ago I shared this same opinion. When I first learned about Stallman's take on how software should be free, I thought the guy was insane. But with time, it's now obvious he was right about a lot of things. Very few things in the history of humanity made as much impact as OSS and all the things it has inspired and enabled: Linux, gcc, Postges, and so on. Think about how man…
> But with time, it's now obvious he was right about a lot of things.
I've gone through the same evolution. Stallman was fundamentally right about the notion of rights for users--to look at, to understand, to change, and to redistribute software. As more of the world is driven by software I think those rights are merging with other fundamental human rights like the right to free speech. They make the world a better place.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you, as opposed to your customers, are just as grumpy and rude as the rest of us...? ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. But your observation -- basically, that if you want non-rude users / customers, don't direct your product at programmers / hackers / geeks -- is so common as to be almost a truism. Why is this? Are we all assholes, or WTF?!? Do we have to be? Sigh...
> don't direct your product at programmers / hackers / geeks On the contrary! My users are programmers/hackers/geeks. The difference is that they use my software to create (experimental) art. Many have a non-technical background, though. I guess that creates (or requires?) a whole different mindset. These people are genuinely happy that the software exists because it helps them to be creative and express themselves.…
> I might be a bit grumpy at times, but that's because I am from Austria :p
Ja ja, alles Böse kommt aus Österreich: Hitler, Schwarzenegger, Fritzl... No, wait, turns out the Governator is a good guy[1]!
OK, sorry, never mind.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Torvalds was unnecessarily unrespectful. He fixed this. Now, he is still to the point and harsh when needed, but in a respectful way. That works and it's still as effective, if not better (because, it turns out, you are more eager to take something in account if it's not insulting you). > So OSS developers must be able to accept very harsh critism or even insults but always be kind to users who offer nothing in retur…
I remember Alan Cox quitting Linux development for the same reasons. Today he works on miniature railways and 8 bit microprocessors with Fuzix.
Wow, I missed this
Well good for him!