cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/113520
Some quotes
Twenty years ago, the phrase 'open source' had a definite meaning in computing which is quite different from the sense it has now...
Why is Free Software so Bad in Quality?
Most free software is poor or unusable. This is heavily disguised because protagonists like to use the isolated points fallacy to sell the idea FOSS is great.
...
...if you're lucky enough to attract such a team you need to keep them together. And for that you need capital and that is exactly where FOSS falls down. This is the main reason why so much FOSS is of poor quality.1
FOSS was Built Out of Corporation and Tax Money
Open Office was derived from Star Office which was the product of StarDivision and Sun Microsystems. It was not put together by a hacker living in his mom’s spare bedroom...
Emacs was supported financially by people working at the MIT AI Lab, which means that it was funded by Uncle Sam...
Linux is...mostly a copy of Unix, despite howls to the contrary it is deeply unoriginal, being based on ideas going back to the time of the Vietnam War. These ideas were in turn evolved within Bell Labs by its creators who were also well-paid professionals. Linus Torvalds really copied an idea whose basis had been funded by university and corporation money and without that basis there would have been no Linux.
Free Open Source is not often Innovative
...lot of FOSS is poorly written reverse-engineered copies of existing commercial software. Innovation is hard; it requires time and brains. Reverse engineering is a powerful disincentive to innovation since anybody who does spend R&D capital in innovation, can have their ideas reverse engineered.
...
Sure. Let's start here:
One can use the term "FLOSS" ("Free/Libre/Open Source Souftware", the term I personally prefer) or "FOSS" ("Free and Open Source Souftware"), and the author does it every now and then, but it needs to be done thoughtfully.
It's like using "busses", "trams", "bus-trams", and "public transport" interchangeably. This alone shows that the author has no clue what they're writing about.
If you doubt that second part, just look at the absolute clusterfsck that Log4shell was, and how it affected every single Big Tech company (proving they use the FLOSS Log4j software package).
Plenty of FLOSS projects are supported by donations (in time, and in money). Some are supported by grants. Some are supported by corporate sponsors.
What is the point there? Can FLOSS developers not be allowed to earn a living developing their freely-shared software?
Also, in the previous point the author notes:
How can you get that "capital" if you don't accept donations and don't apply for grants?
There's plenty of problems with FLOSS (including how toxic corporate sponsorship can be), but this person has no clue what they're talking about. Low quality hot takes by someone with zero understanding of FLOSS.
Could you please quote the author in that? Because I do not think Mark Tarver conflates them. The author begins by contextualizing the shift in meaning of the term "open source", also explicitly states the meaning in text of "free open source software"
then even mentions the term free
In point 2, the author did not actually measure it other than having an opinion. But historically many free software (or most software in general) has bad usability: GIMP (try drawing a circle or adding text), KDE apps and Element matrix (convoluted interface with so many buttons), Emacs (its proposition is different, but still the oldest example of a hard to use free software). IMO mostly GNOME apps are easier, more intuitive to use in general, but in many ways it is a clone of MacOS. Bad UX/UI is because historically there are only constructors (aka programmers) doing the job, so they do not mind designing, iterating, assessing the UX/UI first, also taking into account accessibility, etc.
That is the exact point. That generally relying on donations (as many free software do) is not a sustainable model, or at least a great risk as exemplified with OpenBSD and OpenSSL. That is, for developing good quality, software that is continuously maintained, developers need to be financed by companies or a commercial ecosystem (https://www.gwern.net/Complement) so they can have decent living instead of doing impossible volunteer work forever or just stop maintaining the project entirely.
Many (probably most) companies just will not donate or contribute code back to free software they use. They just want to profit the max they can. do read