Why open source

Why do you prefer open source software to proprietary alternatives?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's what I learned because it was all I had access to because it was all I could afford when I was younger.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    - to view code (audit) or know that others did
    - to modify code (or know others can do it if needed)

    usually (if also free as in beer)
    - no license problems (making more copies, installs)
    - no money

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      foss evangelists in nutshell

      No, you did not read (let alone auidt) the source code. Maybe a teeny tiny portion.

      You trust other autists to do this for you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You trust other autists to do this for you.
        exactly

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You trust other autists to do this for you.
          guilty as charged

          So what's the difference in letting troony autists audit the source code of software you use, vs letting well-paid professionals do it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ~~*well-paid professionals*~~ have ulterior motives like having government mandated backdoors and spyware, troony autists want inclusive language at most and hate the former. I chose the lesser of two evils

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So when someone pays you to write software (eg your employer or client), you admit you also have ulterior motives? Like secretly adding backdoors?

            You only write pure and holy software when you spend your valuable time for free?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, if someone refused to compile my software at home and begged me to compile it for them for psy, I'd do it, but I'd also add code that bricks their system at random.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if you get paid, you have ulterior motives
            If you view your programming efforts as a money-making endeavor, collecting data equates to collecting money in the current year. Only a moron wouldn't do that with said mentality. (It is worth a mention that an exception to this rule is when you cater to "troony autists" and your market value lies in exactly not doing that and keeping your code FOSS)
            >like secretly adding backdoors
            Backdoors get mandated if you're good in said process and get large enough for it to matter for the alphabets.
            >You only write pure and holy software when you spend your valuable time for free?
            I don't work in IT, I program as a hobby, like most of the FSM does, so yes.

            yes, if someone refused to compile my software at home and begged me to compile it for them for psy, I'd do it, but I'd also add code that bricks their system at random.

            not

            ~~*well-paid professionals*~~ have ulterior motives like having government mandated backdoors and spyware, troony autists want inclusive language at most and hate the former. I chose the lesser of two evils

            , i.e. not me

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this includes me breaking user's system and asking money for fixing it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >vs letting well-paid professionals do it?
            LOL
            the ~~*professionals*~~ work for the vendor

            also I get normal audits, not

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that the well paid professional isn't disclosing it publicly moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            have you looked at code written by a "professional" programmer?

            any open source project with any sort of contributor community almost always has better code quality than "professional" code

            closed source means they don't have to worry about even trying to make the code presentable

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You trust other autists to do this for you.
        guilty as charged

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        literally who autist is more trustworthy than some random corporation, xz backdoor got caught early, shit like windows has nsa level backdoors added deliberately by microsoft

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >why not paying for every single bullshit?
        >why not using something that people can't review?
        >man, i do love being a cuck, freetards btfo
        Sent from my iphone 57.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You trust other autists to do this for you.
        guilty as charged

        >You trust other autists to do this for you.
        exactly

        Yes and I do it for them. Not everyone will understand every single line of code. That's where specialisation comes in.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        proprietary:
        0% chance to find backdoor
        vs
        open source: small chance someone will find backdoor because their tool works 200ms slower

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        At least you can patch the code in case you have an issue instead of just replying on some company to release a new version.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because I'm not moronic

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why is the othe mr option moronic?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        because I said so

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the people who develop open source don't think their users are braindead cattles and disgusting goyim like all the israelites in big tech

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >open source software
    Correction: I prefer free software to proprietary alternatives. Much open-source software is also free software, but they are two different things and free software is ultimately what I want. I want it because all people should be able to use computers to improve their lives, even if they have extremely little money. Software should be free.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't give a shit about licenses, if I can see source I will use it and distribute it.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Windows tried to stop me from programming without installing their shitty in-house IDE that took up half of my hard drive and I realized I was smart enough that I didn't need their dumb asses anymore.

    Unfortunately half of the people making open-source software are GNU cultists who are trying to stop me from programming without using their license that restricts my end-users' freedom, and every time I point this out and explain that I prefer permissive licenses or public domain they scoff and go "but it says 'free' on the website, so it must be a free software license" and then they get mad and start throwing shit at me, so I'm not much happier, to be perfectly honest.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >want feature
    >make it
    >pr it (optional)
    damn it feels good to know how to code

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can modify binaries, you know. And you can decompile them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        well maybe you can

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because, for me, there is currently no need for paid software. I don't have a problem, privately or professionaly, that is solved by the custom, niche, professional, paid for solutions. Simple as.
    It is an interesting topic overall, however, because stuff like c, basic, python, java, you name it is free. Not only the languages, but also lots of different IDEs and SDKs. So the question is, why wouldn't the majority of software be free for all?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So the question is, why wouldn't the majority of software be free for all?
      One good reason: Software still requires man-hours to build, and you're never going to get the best labor that humans can provide without some form of compensation to make it worth their time and energy. Thus, logically, if you aren't willing to compensate the people providing you with software, acting like you somehow deserve it is nothing but childish entitlement. This basic property of free market economics is unlikely to change even if we assume that existing open-source software is already sufficient, since all software eventually needs updating to fix security problems and maintain compatibility.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the compensation is good software that's free as is the case with everything on my system, moron

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Having a free Roguelike on my computer isn't going to pay my rent, and nor is it going to pay your student loans. Put down the communist manifesto and do your fricking homework.

          I look at it from a slightly different angle. There is no sitting and waiting for people to give me everything for free in this life. But, if somebody, or a group, has/have a problem, let's say they need to convert shit into .pdf and back, they might strive to create the best version of such a convertor they possibly can, for themselves. After it's done, those people, typically, don't mind just sharing it, including the source code, on the internet.
          I think, this is how we have billions of free and even some paid for solutions for the same basic "problem" a user might encounter.

          That's a nice sentiment, and I appreciate it, but the people who do it for free didn't build computer systems that the average office worker or gamer could use hassle-free. Programmers writing solutions that work for them don't have any reason to make things easier for people who aren't programmers. Software companies that operate on a for-profit basis do, and the economy relies on those computer users being furnished with reliable and easy-to-use software.

          So now we need software companies that operate on a for-profit basis, at least to fill in the gap until the VERY slow advent of user-friendly open-source software catches up. Now we have an economic conflict: If people feel entitled to software that's both free AND easy to use, and the only people supplying the kind of software they require need full-time employees with bills to pay, What are they going to do? They're going to find a way to monetize software distribution without being able to make royalties on unit sales. And now we have Google and Microsoft selling private user data and just about every website on the Internet is tracking you via an analytics process for profit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I look at it from a slightly different angle. There is no sitting and waiting for people to give me everything for free in this life. But, if somebody, or a group, has/have a problem, let's say they need to convert shit into .pdf and back, they might strive to create the best version of such a convertor they possibly can, for themselves. After it's done, those people, typically, don't mind just sharing it, including the source code, on the internet.
        I think, this is how we have billions of free and even some paid for solutions for the same basic "problem" a user might encounter.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is like saying food and housing should be free also because you do not feel like paying for it.

      Who's gonna grow your food and build your house, anon? People who feel like doing it and give it away for free?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        food and housing isn't infinitely copyable, frick off moronic sped, you haven't worked a day in your life, go grow and harvest at least one potato plant before you have an opinion, you moronic monkey who expects to pay just for pressing keys on his keyboard

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Good job missing the point, anon. Excellent reading comprehension.

          Go outside and touch some grass. I bet it's been a while.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have, and it takes more effort than writing software.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        well, read this, I was typing while you replied:

        I look at it from a slightly different angle. There is no sitting and waiting for people to give me everything for free in this life. But, if somebody, or a group, has/have a problem, let's say they need to convert shit into .pdf and back, they might strive to create the best version of such a convertor they possibly can, for themselves. After it's done, those people, typically, don't mind just sharing it, including the source code, on the internet.
        I think, this is how we have billions of free and even some paid for solutions for the same basic "problem" a user might encounter.

        There is no absolute altruism; people do need specific software soulitions and why not develop one yourself? You might aswell share it later, if you don't care much. Whenever some people donate to your little project, it's a nice bonus ofc, but there is no need to go full huge development house to make a yet another notepad solution. On the smaller scope, single people, usually develop mods, plugins, extensions, etc. Because they need it, not because the world has shown a demand and potential for profit. Don't even compare with tangible, physical, limited resources. It's not an equal comparsion.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You might aswell share it later, if you don't care much.
          That just shows that you don't care a lot about the foss software that you write and distribute.

          Why should I (as a software consumer) take your project seriously if 1) you even don't, and 2) professionals who are well compensated do?

          >Don't even compare with tangible, physical
          Irrelevant to the discussion

          >limited resources
          Both food and lumber can be grown and harvested.

          You'll need a computer, internet access, and experience as a developer. So consider that your investment with regards to tools and materials.

          Physical space requirements is as much as a concern as energy requirements for increasingly demanding computing operations, so that evens it out in my book.

          Again, since people are having trouble reading today, this is about spending your precious (dependent on self-worth, of course) and finite time to build something without financial compensation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh heckin financial compensation
            software I wrote saves me time everyday, frick off sped

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That just shows that you don't care a lot about the foss software that you write and distribute.
            Damn right. If one develops a software solution, read it, for themselves, they don't give a shit what other people think, unless they want to become bigger. But, they might share it for free, even among their own friend or peer group, and on the internet, because why not? Why would the one care?
            >y should I (as a software consumer) take your project seriously
            it doesn't matter to the developer. You're not in the picture at all. The following is in the picture: a dev, dev's problem, dev's solution, and the internet. You don't matter.
            >Both food and lumber can be grown and harvested.
            yeah, whatever. Completely irrelevant.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly.

            This is why for people who value their time and who NEED their shit to work (without having to fiddle with config files) tend to pay for high quality proprietary software, instead of pivoting to open source alternatives. Eg Mac vs Linux, Photoshop vs GIMP, Unity vs Godot, MS Office vs Libreoffice.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >proprietary
            >high quality

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Good enough for businesses to make money with.

            That's the beautiful thing about open source vs prop software. Bad open source software tends to stay around because of its nature and the ability for autists to keep it alive. Bad proprietary software on the other hand ceases to exist if the company behind it goes bankrupt, since it cannot be updated or maintained.

            Why do you think normies pay for software if free alternatives exist? They want their shit just to work. This is why Year of the Linux Desktop(tm) will never happen.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >cigarettes and alcohol are good because businesses make money with them
            proprietards are literally mentally ill

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But at least they're employed cucks, am I right?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Businesses make money selling increasingly useless things

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            fine. I don't see the problem here. Photoshop, without a doubt, provides a solution to lots and lots of problems the users might have. Unless you're a graphic designer or some such, however, I don't think you really need it. Its good, but it is way too good for an average user. One even needs a skill, or skills, to use photoshop effectively.
            >Eg Mac vs Linux
            that's just kind of a dumb comparsion here, because they were designed to solve completely different problems and cover different needs.
            Tech illiterate people absolutely need and love Mac, linux users need a server, usually, more than one, professionaly and otherwise. pretty sure they host NAS at home too, lol.
            I'm not using mac, even though we have macbooks at work too. Because there is no usecase for a mac in my line of work. And privately mac also doesn't satisy my needs.

            TL;DR: Both might exist at the same time? I stick to the free solutions, they're sufficient. Why would I ever need anything other than a VLC player?

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, uh, listen here, Anon. You know, I, uh, I’ve always been a big supporter of, uh, open source software. It’s, uh, it's about, ya know, the community, working together, and, uh, creating something that's, uh, for everyone. It’s, it’s not, uh, about profit margins or, uh, keeping secrets. It’s about, uh, sharing knowledge and, uh, making sure that everyone can, can benefit from, from the advancements we make in, uh, technology.

    And, uh, you know, when I was, uh, growing up in Scranton, we didn’t have, uh, all these fancy computers and, uh, software. We, uh, we had to, uh, make do with what we had. My dad used to, uh, say, Joey, you gotta, uh, work with what you got. And, uh, open source, it’s, uh, it’s kinda like that. You, you take what’s available, and, uh, you build on it, you improve it, and, uh, you share it back with, uh, everyone.

    And, uh, it reminds me of, uh, this time I was, uh, at a, uh, diner in, uh, Delaware. This, uh, this young kid came up to me and, uh, asked about, uh, the internet and, uh, computers. And, uh, it hit me, you know, that, uh, we have a responsibility to, uh, make sure the, uh, next generation has, uh, the tools and, uh, resources they need to, uh, succeed. Open source, it, uh, it helps with that, ya know?

    So, uh, yeah, Anon, I, uh, I prefer open source because it, uh, it’s about, uh, inclusivity, and, uh, community, and, uh, making sure that, uh, everyone has a, uh, fair shot. It’s, uh, it’s the right thing to do.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >not spyware
    >can modify and configure
    >filters brainlets

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ideological

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i dont
    if the proprietary software is free and equivalent / better

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no need to worry about telemetry or spyware
    >no need to worry that future versions will be subscription-based or enshittified in some way
    >no need to worry about whether you use it enough to justify the cost
    >no need to worry about exposing yourself to malware by pirating it
    >no need to worry about truly dogshit code hiding behind closed-source (happens more often than you might think)
    >no need to worry about whether a feature is truly useful or just a waste of time propped up by dishonest marketing
    >the features it has are decided by the people intelligent enough to contribute, not by what's more marketable to the general public
    >if I don't know how something works, I can read the source code (yes, I do this)
    >if there's a small bug or something doesn't work the way I like, I can change the source code (yes, I do this)
    >more likely to be packaged in my distro, which means easy updates and no need to trust an additional party for safe downloads
    >tends to have by-autists for-autists features like keybinds, composability, scriptability, etc.
    >don't feel like I'm getting cucked when I write plugins/addons/extensions for it
    >feels good to use it because I know it was written by passionate hobbyists like me
    It's a simple life. I use a few pieces of proprietary software, but they have to be really good to justify not having all this.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    open source covers many things I actually need when it comes to programs and I rather support a movement that creates then a company that doesn't

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Open source is not enough, I'm at a point where I only consider software that is fully open source, has reproducible builds and if it relies on some kind of server can be completely self hosted without the use of docker and other bullshit.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. I like the vision behind it
    2. Just the fact that the devs are open enough to just show you the code makes me trust them more
    3. If there are any changes the community doesn't like, a fork can be created, you're not held hostage in case your entire business stands on that software
    4. If the devs give up, someone else can pick up where they left

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i use open source dependencies when coding my own solutions because there's a good chance it will be broken or need patching.
    for most people complete apps have no real difference between foss and propreitary, both are capable of spying on you. An app that has a weak copyleft or MIT/ISC/BSD can just distribute binaries that are filled with spyware, or pull the xz trick of putting it in the tarballs in a "test" file. or just put the spyware directly in the source since no one fricking reads it anyway.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    - No SAAS
    - Often multiplatform so I can use the same software on all PCs

    It's not something that's innate to Open Source, proprietary software has just shot itself in the foot.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *