Why is free shitty hobby software "ethical", while good professionally developed proprietary software is not?
communist hippies
software can be ethical?
>>53802693
ethics aren't a clear cut topic. It's entirely subjective given each individual's weighing of morality, conduct, and motive.
You should learn more about ethics or avoid the entire subject.
>>53802693
>Why is free shitty hobby software "ethical",
Ensures the user's freedom
>while good professionally developed proprietary software is not?
Enslaves the user and doesn't ensure her freedoms.
>>53802693
Commies who hate capitalism mostly...
Mind you there are damned good reasons to hate Microsoft and Apple but being proprietary is not one of them.
Some people seriously think doing as you wish with your own work is unethical, as if you owe them your work. On the other side of the coin there is a notion that if one pays for software you only get to use it once and only how they see fit...an equally repugnant and disgusting idea.
There is no winning with any of these asswipes.
>>53802858
Freedom isn't free.
>>53802858
>Enslaves the user
>buy Photoshop
>now can't just choose to download and use Gimp because you're "enslaved" by superior software.
How awful.
>>53802931
>"enslaved" by superior software.
This is why they hate Windows and Apple so much. They can't step their game and offer the same functionality and quality so instead go on these delusional rants about being made slaves and having their human rights and even freedom of choice taken away.
>>53802931
>buy Photoshop
>stop paying their monthly fee
>can't use photoshop
>pay to use photoshop again
>encounter a problem
>report and pray for the devs to figure it out and fix it; it's illegal for you to do that yourself even if you could
Great software, really
Because the propriety software isn't good.
It's unethical to charge for a bad product, in comparison to giving away an acceptable product for free.
>>53802875
>capitalism
It's not capitalism if you only have one option.
Good professionally developed software can totally be ethical.
If you pay a software developer to create a program for you (as businesses often do), then it's only natural that the developer gives you the source code. That's just part of delivering a complete product; without the source code you can't update the software or repair it.
If, on the other hand, you buy a license from another company to use a piece of software they created — whether this is SAAS or something you host yourself — you are giving this corporation power over you, and your business depends on on a combination of their goodwill and your ability to continue should this software stop working. This is a large risk, and many businesses are unwilling to take it unless they have good reason to believe that their supplier will not go bankrupt and honour their support contract.
In the end, hobby vs. professional has little to do with it. It's about whether you control the software, or the developer of the software controls you.
There's professional software that includes the source (think anything that's custom-made), and there's hobbyist software that's proprietary (think all the shareware/freeware).
>>53802931
>buy Photoshop
You can't buy Photoshop. What you can buy is a license to use Photoshop. Therein lies the difference.
Well with anything that relates to security, letting everyone see the source code, build it themselves, and modify it freely, is the only way to prove that you aren't deliberately hiding a back door or some other weakness. Plenty of companies releasing proprietary non-free crypto software have later been found to have done it incredibly badly, and tried to sweep it under the rug saying "No, of course you can't see the code yourself. We know what we're doing. Trust us." Then their shit gets broken wide open.
this is why you will get laughed at for defending closed-source in the security world.
>>53803008
No shit Sherlock... I did say you were fucked both ways now didn't I?
Open source you're work has.no fucking value and no monetary compensation so no desire to compete... Thus shit software.
Microcock...abused the rules to destroy any and all competition... No competition means shit software AND draconian licensing rules...
Neither are capitalism and neither is worth a shit steamy shit. And thx to both we stay fucked as consumers.
Next time actually read the fucking post.
>>53802693
its free as in freedoms, not as in free beer. You can still sell "free" software. the idea is that you can do what you like with the program once you have it.
At the end of the day the only losers are the consumers. Fuck open source and its ideological losers
fuck the monopoly having closed source assholes and their customer fucking ways.
Now if anyone has an actual worth a shit alternative to this circus I'm all ears...hell I've been waiting for a real alternative for a decade and a half now...and its still the exact same shit as always.
>>53803081
I think what we're going to have to do is start from scratch with something. It's pointless to say "just install Linux" because, if you buy a new or refurbished computer/laptop from a store then they've already paid the license key and Microsoft has already won.
For the large majority of users going back to building from scratch is not an option, and will simply never happen, so it's pointless to think about it.
We need a new platform that's separate from Microsoft, but also has some support to actually drive MS to be competitive. And it has to be easy to sell.
My personal idea is to try and push RISC-OS and ARM, built around the current trend of being green. It being ARM is essential since we have to distance ourselves from x86, because if x86 enters this field then so does Windows and we're back to square one.
I'm not supporting ARM or RISC-OS specifically, I'm simply using them as examples because they're the only ones who seem even remotely viable at this point.
>>53803156
Sell it to schools and offices based on a "With [this system] you save enough money on electricity to buy it again [how many times] a year!"
>>53802989
And they will go through all that instead of using gimp. Guess why.
>>53802996
No one would pay for it if it wasn't good.
you're right. i'm totally switching to windows 10 whenever i can buy a non thinkpad laptop.
>>53803767
People who want to use a computer for business really don't have a choice. All the software and support is for Windows, and if you did need an on-site administrator then he's also going to only know Windows.
There's only the illusion of a choice.
>paying for software
I honestly don't care about open source or not. If it's good I'll use it. The whole freedom thing us ridiculous because most code for open source is only understood by maybe 2-3 people.
"Ethical" is probably the wrong word for it
There's the idea that you shouldn't pay for software because, after all, it's just code that somebody else has written.
It also means that you can't see their source code, so you can't be sure what's going on behind the scenes. You have to take their word for it.
>>53802693
>hobby
M8, just because it's open source does not mean it isn't made by professionals and companies.
As for "good professionally developed proprietary software", you should know that does not always hold true.
Free software means freedom to use every feature freedom to modify and change code and freedom to copy.
When fsf fags talk about slavery and bs it's just hyperbole. The ethics of literally enslaving niggers isn't comparable to not handing out the source code for your program.
90% of users don't even have the skill to understand code and to make big modifications to it.
>>53803081
>Something is closed and I hate that
>Something is open and I hate that
>Why isn't someone other than me making an alternative to this obvious binary situation?
>>53802989
Reformats and emails make adobe products gratis.
Plugins can be made to fix software issues.
Adobe adds industry leading software features that trickle down from studios. Photoshop literally has a normal map generator now, you wont find that anywhere in GIMP, so you have to find another free software to make up for it.
>>53803863
>There's the idea that you shouldn't pay for software because, after all, it's just code that somebody else has written.
so you shouldn't have to pay for any digital material whatsoever?
>>53803863
I don't think that every program ever should be free of charge. They should however be licensed at least in a way that the code is public even if you aren't allowed to redistribute it. You could at least make sure that there aren't backdoors or spying included even if you can't turn it into another project. Closed source should disappear totally, developers shouldn't automatically be trusted but put to test to see if they are legit.
>>53803918
>Plugins can be made to fix software issues.
>Photoshop literally has a normal map generator now, you wont find that anywhere in GIMP, so you have to find another free software to make up for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=8Jdo3ZmtPWk
>>53803963
this exactly
>>53803759
There's no question Adobe software (not just Photoshop, but Illustrator and InDesign as well) has no real competition, ethical or otherwise. That said, you have no idea how many professionals and studios who otherwise don't give a fuck about "software ethics" stick to CS6 suite simply because Adobe's current licensing model is too much to swallow even for them. Creative Botnet rustled major jimmies in the inustry when it was first announced.
>>53803909
Way to provide not only a great solution but also to completely miss the point entirely.
>>53804075
It is true, that is the reason programs like Sketch and Affinity are gaining momentum. Free software never made a dent when there was an opportunity.
>>53804115
>I don't like the open source way because I'm scared someone will think I'm a neckbeard
>Why does the closed source model always screw the user, can't we just start trusting them and then some magic happens and they won't screw us? Can't we have that?
>There just has to be a better way but I can't quite put my finger around it!
The obvious and helpful solution: man up and use that better model, you pussy
>>53804839
>deleting your post because of the name
>not realizing it's 4chan's ebin April Fool's
>>53804989
I realized it after it happened again but the phone app is usually acting so randomly that I first assumed it was a bug. To me the day is already halfway done and my earlier posts didn't have that naming thing today.
