[zen21]

> None of these issues are specific to F/LOSS, so the post reads like a rant from an entitled user.

> The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays.

By this logic, FOSS is always impervious to criticism because non FOSS is worse.

That’s not an argument against the premise of the article.

[imiric]

No, that's not what I'm saying. But the article criticizes general issues of _any_ software project. Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to F/LOSS, and for that reason "source code is not enough".

F/LOSS projects have plenty to criticize, like any other project. The major difference is that they provide more freedoms, where these issues can be fixed by external contributors. Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.

[zen21]

> Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to FOSS

This is just not a logical reading of his argument. He is saying FOSS is necessary but not sufficient. His argument can clearly only apply to FOSS and doesn’t apply to other kinds of software.

> Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.

Except that’s not what he’s saying. You are responding to the title of the piece but not that argument it makes.

He’s saying FOSS is not enough to empower people in general to hack on software and bend it to their will.

It’s not clear what you mean by ‘entitled’ in this context.