Re: [libreplanet-discuss] 7 Reasons to Avoid Open Source?

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

If the original misinformation article website weren't forcing non-free
client-side software through JS I would vote for mentioning Michael
Pagan's reply there.

Also, I have some points to add to Michael Pagan's reply:

I agree with the bias of "intellectual property", also see the comments
I made on [1].

On the interoperability issues, see [2]. As for the costs, the author of
the article missed it entirely.

Financially speaking, while the acquisition cost of free/libre software
*can be* almost zero or completely so (we can also hook "open source"
here, no matter if it follows the free/libre software *philosophy* or
not), the fact is that they both have maintainance, customization and
training costs just as equal as the counterparts (although people
strangely perceive these differently as having less
transition/maintainance cost, which as far as I can see is caused by
their "path dependency" on the latter).

In the end of the day, however, between "open source" projects and
free/libre software projects (and now I'm refering only to those which
follow the free/libre software *philosophy*, and so disregarding the
"open source" ones), only the free/libre seem to be able to provide
results which are in conformity with their primary goal.

In other words, by making an overview of open source projects --- that
is: which have the primary goal of following the open source development
methodoly and (I assume) do so following the Open Source Initiative's
definition of "open source", which promises quality, reliability and
flexibilty --- with their results and how many times they fulfilled
their promise (of quality, reliability and flexibilty); and by making
the same comparison between free/libre software projects and how many
times they fulfilled the promise of providing a
free/libre-software-*philosophy*-compliant result --- no matter if there
were "quality", reliability and flexibility bugs/issues, because the
main gola/promise was never to have none ---, one can see that the
latter has the primary goal/promise carefully set to something which can
be attested with more ease.

So for the latter case, the "quality" in conformity with primary
goal/promise is accomplished. For a similar argumentation see [3].

As for documentation, +1 for mentioning the importance of GNU
Info/Texinfo pages. ;)

Also, I'm not a developer, but I noticed that at least GNU Guile Scheme
and Emacs Lisp allow "in-declaration (docstring)" documentation that
would enable someone to use a software to display those, similarly to
what is done inside Emacs when someone does M-x describe-function RET or
the same for variables but replacing "function" accordingly. As a plus,
discarding the quantity of parenthesis, at least for me GNU Guile Scheme
and Emacs Lisp are more senile in regards to how to quote or postpone
evaluation of things, besides suffering less from loops. There are other
advantages but I'll limit myself for now. ;)

[1] 
<https://listas.trisquel.info/pipermail/trisquel-users/2017-November/083315.html>.

[2] <https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-November/012087.html>.

[3] <https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libby/m/mako/>.

2017-12-03T14:22:08-0500 Michael Pagan wrote:
> _Let us dissect his arguments, point-by-point, shall we?_
>
> * Reason #1 – Lacks a traceable software development life cycle
>
> Incorrect – free software can actually /provide/ a traceable software
> development life cycle.  Anyone who uses a [version control system][0]
> (VCS) knows this to be extremely common among free software projects.
>
> [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version_control_system
>
> Direct quote about a VCS from Wikipedia:
>
>     Revision control allows for the ability to revert a document to a
>     previous revision, which is critical for allowing editors to *track*
>     each other's edits, correct mistakes, and defend against vandalism
>     and spamming.
>
> The root word of *traceable* is trace, which is a synonym of the word
> *track*, hence VCS allows editors to trace/track each other's edits.
> Yes, free software does not *have* to be version controlled; however, it
> is the norm, and it is wrong to assume that ALL free programs are
> developed without any form of version control.  _Reason #1_ is a lie!
>
> * Reason #2 – Designed for functionality[,] not robustness
>
> This is a half-truth (lie) based on assumptions, and the author does not
> provide any real-world examples––although he likes to say "real-world"––
> that prove his point.  Phrases like /is often written functionally/;
> /generally not robust/; /expects that a wrench will never be thrown/;
> /rarely the case/; and /can find/ (not *will* find), only prove that
> this author is assuming that free software is not designed for
> robustness.  There are thousands of free software projects online, and
> he assumes that they are not robust; otherwise, he should have said that
> *some* free software is not robust–– this would've been more believable.
>
> The last sentence of his second reason (direct quote) is true for all
> software projects, and not just free software.  He does not say this, of
> course, and by omitting this truth–– he lies:
>
>     Developers will find themselves having to dig through unknown
>     terrain trying to figure out how best to improve or handle errors
>     that weren’t expected by the original developers.
>
> _Reason #2_ is a lie!
>
> * Reason #3 – Accidentally exposing confidential intellectual property
>
> The term [intellectual property][1] is a misleading term designed to
> cause confusion.  Anyone who uses a free software license uses it for
> the explicit reason to publish/expose their software/information.  Free
> Software licenses require users to share software/knowledge, hence it is
> not accidental–– it is *deliberate* (free licenses make this obvious).
>
> [1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
>
> Richard Stallman has written extensively about this [confusing term][1],
> and you can read those essays via this link (4 essays as of now):
>
> https://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/estseek.cgi?phrase=intellectual+property+%21+diff&attr0=%40title+ISTRINC+Intellectual+Property&attr1=&attr2=&order=&perpage=10&clip=9&navi=1
>
> _Reason #3_ is a lie!
>
> * Reason #4 – Lacking automated or manual tests
>
> Notice how he did not say "Completely Lacking."  Notice also how he has
> looked at Python projects, but has not mentioned whether he has looked
> at other types of projects.  Once again, no specific examples of which
> tests the free software community is actually missing.  No references to
> mailing lists or forums where he has asked for such tests have been
> identified.  How can anyone agree with such a statement without proof?
>
> More assumptions and no evidence... _Reason #4_ is *evidently* a lie!
>
> * Reason #5 – Poor documentation or documentation that is lacking
>   completely (he said "completely"–– I WILL debunk this)
>
> Has this author ever heard of a [man page][2] (not related to men, `man'
> is short for *manual*) before?  How about the [info reader][3]?
>
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_page
> [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info_%28Unix%29
>
> One of the *main* reasons to use free software is *because* it is so
> well documented.  I have yet to find any software in my GNU/Linux distro
> that does not come with documentation.  Richard Stallman once complained
> about [a lack of free documentation for free software][4]... this was
> about _[10 years ago][5]_ and is no longer true!
>
> [4]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
> [5]: 
> https://web.archive.org/web/19990224050619/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
>
> Now for my strongest point!  Even if free software has no manuals which
> document it's use, and not even a command-line "help" option, I dare
> say: You can *still* learn how the software works, even without these!
>
> Some of you must be wondering how?  _Here's how:_ It's free software,
> and you can access the source code!  Has Jacob Beningo never heard of a
> [source code comment][6] before?  Yes, it is possible to learn how
> software works––with or without source code comments–– and you can even
> generate documentation from said comments.  This type of documentation,
> by the way, can ONLY be accessed from free software!
>
> [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comment_(computer_programming)
>
> Not only is this the norm for free software, but for all GNU
> programs... it is [standard][7].
>
> [7]: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Comments.html
>
> _Reason #5_ is a lie!
>
> * Reason #6 – Real-time support is lacking
>
> No proof is provided here.  No mailing lists have been identified where
> he has *personally* asked for support and received none.  No references
> are made to any forums, IRC channels, or even wiki pages, where he has
> posted or published a request for support.  Every (and I mean *every*)
> time I have asked for support for free software that is still actively
> maintained (some free software is [abandonware][8]), I always got it.
>
> [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware
>
> Anyone ever heard of the phrase: "The proof of the pudding is in the
> eating!"  A similar phrase can be said: "The proof of a lack of support
> is in the requesting of said support."  No requests; no support–– common
> sense, folks.  He has omitted requests for support that he "supposedly"
> made, hence _Reason #6_ is also a lie (omission of requests)!
>
> * Reason #7 – Integration is never as easy as it seems
>
> Perhaps the author (with his constant assumptions) once again assumed
> that integration would be easy, but did not do his research about the
> process ahead of time.  With a [catalog][9] of so many free software
> programs to solve any given task, I usually do my research ahead of time
> to determine which free program would be best to use to solve my
> problems.  Perhaps the author went with the first free program he found
> and just used it without research, and without looking at other free
> alternatives.
>
> [9]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Once again, we won't know for sure until he explains.  But can we expect
> an assumer who commonly omits information to tell the truth?
>
> In case it isn't obvious by now... _Reason #7_ is a lie!
>
> * (Jacob Beningo's) Conclusions
>
>     By no means am I against open source software. It’s been extremely
>     helpful and beneficial in certain circumstances. It’s important
>     though not to just use software because it’s free and open
>     source. Developers need to recognize their requirements, needs, and
>     the robustness level that they require for their product and
>     appropriately develop or source software that meets those needs
>     rather than blindly selecting software because it’s “free.”
>
> ** My conclusions
>
> His (Jacob Beningo's) conclusions reveal him as a hypocrite.  He says he
> is not /against open source software/ or free as in freedom (faif)
> software, but then states: "It’s important though not to just use
> software because it’s free."  I––for one–– ONLY use software *when* it
> is free.  He also states that "Developers need to recognize
> <SNIP>... rather than blindly selecting software because it’s “free.”
> Apparently, I––as well as millions of others–– am/are blind and do NOT
> recognize.
>
> What is this guy all about, anyway?  Let's take a direct excerpt from
> his article that describes him:
>
>     Jacob Beningo is an embedded software consultant who currently works
>     with clients in more than a dozen countries to dramatically
>     transform their businesses by improving product quality, cost and
>     time to market.
>
> This man is focused on improving product quality, cost and time to
> market–– he did not list *freedom* as a priority.  This description of
> himself already tells us where his loyalty lies–– NOT with the
> community, but rather for businesses (proprietary–– very scary).
>
> Are you blind for choosing [software freedom][7]?  Does anyone agree or
> disagree with his nonsense?  I certainly do NOT agree!
>
> [7]: https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech2.html
>
>
> Truthfully

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.