[tonyedgecombe]

I don't think jayliew was doubting what the definition of open source is but rather whether software is good because its open source and bad because it's closed.

If someone thinks it is as black and white as this then it has clearly become ideological rather than rational.

[jayliew]

This. I think when you have one lens through which you view the world, as opposed to having multiple lenses to pick from, which you swap out to apply the most beneficial lens from which to view the problem .. then this is no different than using the one hammer you have because all problems look like a nail.

I do think there are some software that in reality, for most people (including large swathes of non-technical people), work better in a for-profit model (which is usually closed source).

But there are some things that work better as open source.

I think it really depends on the fundamental problem (i.e. ends) the software (i.e. means) is trying to accomplish.

I personally do not think you can categorically say one is better than the other, because it really depends on the issue.

Why isn't there an open source Google search, that works better than Google?

If we can open source our encryption algorithms because that ostensibly makes it more secure overall, why can't we just open source all our algorithms for spam filtering, especially to the spammers themselves?

If you look at all the most vibrant communities online, are they closed source or open source? (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, HN itself) ... vs. say, mailing lists, usenet, etc.

[icebraining]

Ideological and rational are not in opposition.

Also, he doesn't think all software is good just because it's foss; it can be bad for other reasons. But all non-foss software is bad, because it violates the rights of users.

I don't see the problem with being this consistent. If I say that all non-consensual sex is bad, am I an irrational ideologue too?

[jayliew]

Ideological and rational are not in opposition all the time, but they're not congruent all the time either.

I don't fully agree that all non-foss are bad, or that all foss are good. You can find exceptions to the rule either way.

I think the helpful perspective is to take a step back and look at the whole system from a macro perspective. Based on traction, which do you think is "better". I think it really depends on the use-case.

There's a lot of shitty foss software out there, that is just plain unusable because developers like geeking out over code but UX + UI polish are non-technical problems and thus ignored.