Let's take a moment to appreciate open source software
It's amazing, there is so much software built entirely on the goodwill of people, anyone can download, share, modify and use that software for free, without any restriction.
The best part is, it's all free.
>>53532478
There's so much quality software, ffmpeg, VLC, Firefox, and god knows what and FOSS people are giving it away all for free, not asking for anything in return.
All of those statements are true.
But my opinion is that most of the free software I've used has been barely functional shit that I immediately ditched for commercial software developed by a team that understands how to make interfaces that make sense to more than just one person.
The only, ONLY free software that hasn't been total shit is GlovePIE, and to even get to the download for that, you had to get through 3 pages promising that you:
> weren't a Zionist Jew (software won't work if your pc locale was Jewish)
> acknowledged that using your computer was actively destroying the planet
> promised to only download and use his software if you were running off of nuclear power plants
Total nut. But I was able to make some dank macros and voice commands in games with it.
>>53532478
Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute for “free software.” Those terms refer to a different set of views based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for your freedom in your computing, as a matter of justice. The open source non-movement does not campaign for anything in this way.
When referring to the open source views, it's correct to use that name, but please do not use that term when talking about us, our software, or our views—that leads people to suppose our views are similar to theirs.
>>53532590
If a FOSS software can even provide 80% the features of a proprietary counterpart, it's considered good. Because it's 80%of a paid software all for free
There is a lot of quality software in FOSS, most do what they're supposed to and do is well. But the UI might be a little rough around the edges, but it works
Also, good FOSS effectively takes over everything else when it's good enough for mass use.
Because if you have to choose between
>locked down, difficult to build around software that costs money
vs.
>same features, quality and image, but entirely opened up for future preservation
The latter is guaranteed to last for as long as human beings need it. X-Split might have been a good streaming program once upon a time, but OBS does all that shit and more without having to spend a dime, so OBS wins forever
Open source programs are usually pure shit.
>>53532630
Go back to /v/ermin
>>53532614
What I tend to notice about FOSS is that the feature set is entirely based on the she's interests at the time. The software is, too often for my tastes, poorly rounded out, so you end up downloading 6 FOSS programs to do what one commercial program could do, which is worth it if:
> it's a very niche application so a commercial solution doesn't exist
> you're broke/the commercial option is rape tier overpriced
> your time is worthless so you don't mind having a severely janky workflow
>>53532699
Whatever man
Open source software is made to be used by the original creators of the software, they release the source code so that anyone can modify the code to suite their requirements
Remember you don't have to pay for open source software
>>53532808
I get that, I really do, but as an average user (a.k.a. I don't code), I'm not looking for half baked solutions when I'm looking for programs, I'm looking to not spend money.
We're obviously looking at this from different viewpoints, and I don't think either one of us is entirely right or wrong.
>>53532478
>appreciate
no decent 3d parametric CAD software
>inb4 freecad
too buggy even for half-serious use. a mess of "workarounds"
>inb4 blender
not parametric
no decent video editing software
>inb4 wat is cinelerra
tried it, crashes way too often
Sometimes, goodwill isn't enough to make a good software. Programmers have bills to pay too.
>>53532909
Well it's free, so you can't expect it to be the best, but often open source software works.
Open source software quality is dependent on the time, the older it is, the higher quality it is because of numerous contributions and changes to the code
>>53532478
>It's amazing, there is so much software built entirely on the goodwill of people
Yeah, "goodwill of people" is not why there's so much FOSS.
Free software usually does some small task, but once you need heavy lifting software, you quickly find out there are only shit free correspondents. See Photoshop or serious CAD programs. That's why they're free, because they can't offer much in terms of features, unless it's something that can be developed by a few people.
Once you need software that uses big engines for rendering, it ceases to be either free or of quality. Small, hobbyist teams can only go so far...
Imagine the concept of free applied to national infrastructure. How shitty an airport, highway or port can a team of hobbyists build? What about a big company with lots of machines and staff? It's kind of the same.
>>53532626
OBS is better than xsplit because it has more settings and I can tweak it to work even better for me. Xsplit felt like a toy to me compared to OBS.
>xsplit can't encode with ultrafast profile
>>53532478
Just pirate all proprietary software and block their internet access unless it's necessary for them to work, fuck the system.
>>53532478
>"charging method"
>charging something with a 3.5mm phone connector
I would buy a figure with a jack like that though.
Free software has the drawbacks of socialism and communism. Goodwill can only go so far before they run into the human nature sculpted by darwinism.
>>53534977
>Goodwill can only go so far before they run into the human nature sculpted by darwinism.
Collaboration on projects of mutual benefit?
>>53532478
>built entirely on the goodwill of people
It's not really goodwill
It might be MAINTAINED by goodwill, but most initial products are made for the author themselves
>>53534977
