Don’t forget security. Linux laptops are a gaping hole compared to my MacBook Pro.
I really despise some of the open source crusaders that look the other way when things don’t fit their narrative.
Common tools such as Postgres, Swift, Python, OpenSSH, billion other pieces of open software that are funded by the same companies that this article shits on.
There is a place for proprietary software in the society. And there is a place for open source software in the society.
Matlab is amazing even though it’s closed source. When I have a fricking Jet Engine hoisted up on a test stand and I discover some bug in the instrumentation Matlab toolbox, I can call them and speak to an engineer directly in about 45 seconds. We are not a 10 people company. We have billions on the line. And, $13k a year in licensing proprietary software with instant support is fine. It gets the job done. Docs are unbelievably comprehensive.
I love open source software and truly see value in it. But if something is closed source but has proven track record, I’m fine with it.
Good luck trying to convince Bloomberg Terminal to release their source code.
Let's be very clear, this is from gnu.org, so this is not "open source crusaders", this is "free software zealots". There are no compromises when it comes to Free Software, no pragmatism and no leeway for choices to be made that serve a purpose if they reduce the freedom of the software.
I am not explicitly criticising GNU/FSF, but I think it's important to remember that they are always going to take the most extreme view on these matters, because that's why those projects exist.
(personally I see FSF/RMS as a lighthouse. I find their presence useful for navigation, but I don't necessarily want to get too close to them ;)
free software people will rewrite proprietary software under a free and open source license. Open source people will rewrite free software licensed software under a open source license. From a pragmatic perspective, I rather pick the former than the later, and the practical benefits are noticeable when going from a proprietary software to an free and open source version, but going from GPL to MIT has no meaningful impact on my ability to use the program.
Talking about pragmatism, why do a weather app developers feel the need to get permission to access to my contact list, sms, my web browser history, and so on? It seems clear that regardless of what kind of software a developer, community or company do, there are political aspects that pushes away pragmatism. Simple programs that do a practical job and nothing else should be the norm, but there seems to always be a will to push it away from that.
I really despise some of the open source crusaders that look the other way when things don’t fit their narrative.
Common tools such as Postgres, Swift, Python, OpenSSH, billion other pieces of open software that are funded by the same companies that this article shits on.
There is a place for proprietary software in the society. And there is a place for open source software in the society.
Matlab is amazing even though it’s closed source. When I have a fricking Jet Engine hoisted up on a test stand and I discover some bug in the instrumentation Matlab toolbox, I can call them and speak to an engineer directly in about 45 seconds. We are not a 10 people company. We have billions on the line. And, $13k a year in licensing proprietary software with instant support is fine. It gets the job done. Docs are unbelievably comprehensive.
I love open source software and truly see value in it. But if something is closed source but has proven track record, I’m fine with it.
Good luck trying to convince Bloomberg Terminal to release their source code.