[zen21]

> There is no other interpretation. "not enough" implies there should be MORE, which is a requirement. The requirement is never elucidated.

Yes it is. At the top of the article he says:

> People will often claim that since X is Free and Open Source Software, every user of X is enabled to hack on it and bend it to their will.

Which is basically the same goal as Alan Kay had for smalltalk systems. Why is it so controversial to say we haven’t reached this goal?

[Supermancho]

> Yes it is. At the top of the article he says:

> > People will often claim that since X is Free and Open Source Software, every user of X is enabled to hack on it and bend it to their will.

The requirement is never elucidated, stands. "bend it to their will" is not a qualitative or actionable statement, which is impressive hand-waving.

Nothing about this is related to Alan Kay.

[zen21]

https://tinlizzie.org/IA/index.php/End-User_Programming_by_A...

Here is one of many places where Alan Kay talks about making programming available to everyone.

It’s a good starting point for work exploring the deeper idea of enabling people to ‘bend software to their wills’.

[bsza]

Because it's an expectation about the quality of the maintainer's work. FOSS and code quality are two very different things, and they should stay that way. The saying "looking a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind.

[zen21]

You seem to be validating the original complaint - that FOSS alone doesn’t empower people the way it is often claimed.

As for looking a gift horse in the mouth, you may not be aware of how much that sentiment devalues FOSS. The implication being that as long as it’s free, it doesn’t matter how bad it is.

[bsza]

On the contrary, this is the sentiment that encourages us to make free software in the first place. This is the only reason FOSS exists, even. Who in the world would license something under the GPL if its terms didn't make it clear that the software comes with "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY"?

As long as it’s free, it doesn’t matter how bad it is, because at least you're giving others a chance to make it better, INCLUDING improving the code quality to enable less experienced developers, or even laypeople, to collaborate. No one should expect you to take that burden upon yourself. If all developers did everything right on the first try, we wouldn't need open source.

[zen21]

It’s not clear why you’re taking about warranties.

It’s strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.

It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.

On the contrary, that would make open source far more valuable because it would be easier for people to add to or modify, and a better example for newcomers.

The author is not attacking the existence of open source. He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.

[Supermancho]

> It’s not clear why you’re taking about warranties.

Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.

> It's strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...

> It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.

Moving the goalpost to another hand-wavy quality of "great code", is not meaningful. The fact you think this is some sort of concrete goal (as opposed to a quality about simple utility), is telling.

> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.

That's circumstantial, like most things in life.

You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article. Good luck with whatever.

[zen21]

> Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.

That clause means that the author of the code isn’t legally liable for defects.

How is this relevant at all to the article? Nobody is talking about legal action.

>> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.

> That's circumstantial, like most things in life.

Obviously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, nor that we shouldn’t discuss it.

> You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article.

Generally when someone complains about an argument being in bad faith it means they are personally invested in defending something they think is under attack. It’s not clear to me what you think you are defending.