> Yaak will add a plugin system to its closed-core model, achieving the benefits of open source without the burden.
In what world does having a plugin system even come close to achieving the benefits of open source?
> This means it's often quicker for the maintainer to just implement the feature themselves.
This is an argument to not take external PRs, but that doesn't require being closed source. For example, SQLite.
> Transparency doesn't just mean code, however. There are many ways for closed-source projects to be transparent as well.
But none of them are even close to as good. That's like saying you shouldn't ever wash your hands because there are many other ways to stop the spread of disease.
> It's possible for users to audit the code of an open-source project and disclose any issues. The key word here is "possible." I don't actually remember this happening
But "impossible" is strictly worse than "possible but hasn't yet happened to my knowledge".
> Imagine working at a company that hired anyone who applied. It would quickly fill with people bringing irrelevant experience and misaligned incentives. This is the unfortunate reality of open source
But that's not what open source is. That would only be if you had a bot that accepted every PR with no review.
> It's hard to deal with unappreciative or rude feedback
It's hard to manage long back-and-forth feedback cycles
It's hard to say no to most things once the project has matured
It's hard when a good contributor leaves
It's hard to feel good about 1000+ open issues
It's hard that it never stops.
But all of those things are also true of closed source software.
In what world does having a plugin system even come close to achieving the benefits of open source?
> This means it's often quicker for the maintainer to just implement the feature themselves.
This is an argument to not take external PRs, but that doesn't require being closed source. For example, SQLite.
> Transparency doesn't just mean code, however. There are many ways for closed-source projects to be transparent as well.
But none of them are even close to as good. That's like saying you shouldn't ever wash your hands because there are many other ways to stop the spread of disease.
> It's possible for users to audit the code of an open-source project and disclose any issues. The key word here is "possible." I don't actually remember this happening
But "impossible" is strictly worse than "possible but hasn't yet happened to my knowledge".
> Imagine working at a company that hired anyone who applied. It would quickly fill with people bringing irrelevant experience and misaligned incentives. This is the unfortunate reality of open source
But that's not what open source is. That would only be if you had a bot that accepted every PR with no review.
> It's hard to deal with unappreciative or rude feedback It's hard to manage long back-and-forth feedback cycles It's hard to say no to most things once the project has matured It's hard when a good contributor leaves It's hard to feel good about 1000+ open issues It's hard that it never stops.
But all of those things are also true of closed source software.