All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
- 0 users online
- 25 users / day
- 302 users / week
- 346 users / month
- 478 users / 6 months
- 18 subscribers
- 1.69K Posts
- 6.26K Comments
removed by mod
In my opinion the world isn’t that black and white. For example in my experience let’s compare eclipse (FOSS) Netbeans (I think it was FOSS too) and Intellij. Eclipse and Netbeans were both great IDE’s in the early days. The open plugin architecture of eclipse made Netbeans a de-facto dead project. But the extremely pluggable architecture of eclipse became the biggest disadvantage, e.g there were plugins which were incompatible together and it happened really fast that you broke your IDE. Besides the many legacy interfaces which were still present because of backwards compatibility made it really difficult for a new plugin developer to know which interface to choose for which functionalities. Then there were Jetbrains with their new (proprietary) IDE Intellij, which came long after eclipse, and increased there Market in a very short time, with a very stable piece of software and a clean and intuitive UI.
I was a long time user and defender of eclipse, but in the last 2 years I worked with Intellij and never looked back.
I dislike the free software scene seems to prioritize clones, it is not innovative. For innovation there is a need to do both research and development (not only construction, but also requirements, design and architecture, …), while free software clones skip the hard part and just go directly to construction. Well fortunately we got many innovative free software though.
The majority of closed source software is not innovative at all. It’s usually just a rehash of existing ideas and functions with a new UI.
Cloning it is also not innovative but FOSS is hardly to blame here. If anything, breaking users free from lock-in is the main innovative aspect.
indeed. but also read the issue with that https://beehaw.org/post/112120/comment/30343
I think it’s absurd putting free software against tech giants in the same field. One is for profit and can pay to innovate, the other consist of volunteers doing it (mostly) for free. It’s not like FOSS applications don’t want to innovate, it’s just that they can’t for the most part.
It’s equally absurd to demand things like “you should do research and development”, like who are you talking to in particular? The FOSS community is not an organization.
i’m aware and linked an article that talks about it https://www.marktarver.com/problems.html
but at the same time that is why proprietary software has such advantage, to be the first, to be the innovative, so people turn to them. When a FOSS alternative/clone is released, people are already hostage to the proprietary ecosystem. I am aware current society model is what fundamentally leads to this.
where do you got that quote from other than from yourself?
Most “innovation” is built on top of free software.
Why wouldn’t you want to skip the hard part? What you describe is something like a ‘not invented here’ mindset where you disregard good solutions to a problem just because you didn’t find them.
for example GNU/Linux is a clone of Unix. Unix is bad [maybe unless you wanna run it on your toaster]. So GNU/Linux inherited Unix bad designs.
also skipping other processes like requirements and user interface design is why historically FOSS has bad UX/UI, but business-wise this is a good thing for companies so they commercialize proprietary products and services surrounding the FOSS ecosystem
So MenuetOS is better than Linux then? How come the worse solution is more widely used?
i did not mention MenuetOS, so I will not comment about it.
Read https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf; basically Unix is a “virus”. It was cheaper and could run on everyone’s computers and their toasters, so it became popular. GNU/Linux’s cheaper yet (free), so it became popular; that was one of the main reason GNU “accepted” Linux (also because Hurd development was stagnant).
removed by mod