Why is open source done? The developer gives up all his code and potential for profit from the code.
Article: https://christitus.com/why-open-source/ .
►► Digital Downloads ➜ https://www.cttstore.com
►► Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/christitustech
►► Twitch ➜ https://www.twitch.tv/christitustech
►► Website and Guides ➜ https://christitus.com
Here's my 2 cents:
Open source fallback should exist where proprietary doesn't/seizes to exist
Blending opensource and closed source is the way.
open source projects have 1.01 devs per project on average, there is no "community driven" development in general, but one maintainer doing almost everything
i bought a version of Chris de-bloater its really worth a lot also bought a downloader for you tube but social security doesnt let me do a lot of buying im 77years old and can see value i mainly use mx23.3 because i like debian
paid $ 20 for nothing
I try to avoid proprietary software in which I'm the product. If it's free and proprietary, I put it under double the amount of scrutiny as any other product
Personally, I enjoy the simplicity of open source software – for the vast majority of it, you just install it. No licenses to activate or funky cloud dependencies, it just installs and runs.
Now I want a video of Chris roasting the worst closed-source software
I began using open source when I came to Linux when MS ended support for XP. The thing I noticed about open source is that it is developed by people who use it, so they are more interested in functionality than useless gadgets that bloat and complicate the usefulness of products. I have seen this idea of open source brought into to other systems from manufacture to business where the input from the community of those who used the product has made these businesses better than their competitors. Closed source top down management has stagnated the business and manufacturing sector for far to long and has out lived it's usefulness.
I think a pretty good solution is doing open source, but distributing the binary for a price. The one problem would be somebody else just compiling and putting up the binary for free. That leads me to a question: Is there an open source license where the binary is copyrighted and can only be distributed and sold by a specific team or entity?
This leaves the source open for people to contribute and for businesses or users to do internal customized builds for themselves only.
I really think there has to be a happy medium like this, otherwise the only people that profit from open source are huge corporations. Cause how can a small open source project be profitable? I don't see how.
I pick free and open source apps because it's good if you don't have enough money to buy paid, closed source apps.
HEY MA IM IN THA TV
There are so many programmers in the world now that with the exception of some specialized areas, coding is a commodity. This is evident in how game developers are being treated by the AAA companies.
Open source is very good for a project funded by institutions or a hobby or without profit project. It's not a feasible business model unless there is other income.
Weak, normie view on this topic, sorry
I think that Windows can be open source. They don`t sell it anymore, because i can download iso from their site for free. Like downloading Linux distro
Good video.
It's not always about the money.
Say free a s in freedom please or simply libre.
Thank you!
I think a lot of people throw the baby out with the bath water. Taking the good part of one idea and mixing it with the good part of another can make something great. It does not just work for software with open source and closed source. We can look at hybrid cars, political systems, healthcare. People should have an open mind and try to critically think what is good, what is bad, why do people like this.
Hey Chris, great video and I have 2 comments.
First. An idea for a new video on how to start using git PROPERLY.
Second. 40 years ago I started off in UNIX and went to microsoft based development ending up on a team of 300+ developers, obviously closed source. The closed source on big projects is a must as you have to be able to enforce quality control (in my opinion probably 35% of the cost of development) and this is only possible with commercial funding (as you stated). Since retirement I've moved back to open source with the hope of being able to give back to the community. BUT this is proving harder than I thought as after 20+ years in a very controlled (and stifled) development environment I'm having to learn how the real world works just like a newbie. Closed source development by it's nature is very restrictive in "keeping up with the times" and forces everyone to follow the project line (Given I helped write the "line" but I still had to follow it). This is a warning to people getting stuck in closed source development. It is very hard to get out and once out, you are at the bottom of the food chain again, I'm lucky as I'm retired.
I think of the funding process in the other direction. Some company wants some software? Great – they are spending the money to have it whether it's open or not, unless they want to move into the software sale business, it may as well be open. It's marketing for their company, it means they can use better libraries, and it might mean that the maintenance burden gets spread out or maybe even someone will use it to build a better free alternative. Unless you want to specifically be in that business, just open it.
I have not watched p@rn so far this year. Dr Trish however is putting up videos about it every now any then.
Boring. How about talking about p@rn for girls/women. Social media (all the attention they get) gives women the same dopamin kick as a â€solo play†with porn gives a man.
But is Dr Trish talking anything about that? No!
I think she hates men.
Working on open source projects also allow an inexperienced developer to build up a "portfolio" of work that they've done that they can then show to a prospective employer who, because it's open source, can validate what they are claiming. It's a really powerful way for a young person to get their foot in the door and there are so many projects out there that there's always some way to contribute and get brownie points for.
Titus you probably don't know this but you know me, my father wrote a program from when I was 8 to when I was 10. He then proceeded to pickup customers like coke cola, grey hound bus, and many others. That why we moved to Colleyville, and away from the poor part of ft. worth. I love open source, I think its awesome, but yes, If you are good at something, never do it for free, unless you don't want to make money off of it, and just want to make something cool.
Thanks for the video!
Now it is more clare for me!
hey Chris. the genre of programs that you sometimes skirt around in your videos are those that are designed for malicious intent. but like many good projects, these nefarious projects can be found as open source as well. is there a video about such projects in your stash somewhere?
Many "open source" projects are making lots of money through providing tech support to companies using their products. You can also do dual licensing for your project, like Qt did. The only kinda valid argument here is that you can't profit as much in open source, but it's just that we haven't really tried to monetize it *YET*. I would pay the double the price for free(free as in freedom) software that I would for a proprietary one.
I don't use proprietary software, I'm running Guix, other than the advantages that guix provides, using only free and open source products has boosted my productivity dramatically(I have deleted my social media accounts, and even for youtube I use invidious, I just logged in back to this account just to provide this comment, since newbies watch chris someone might find it helpful). We should promote technologies that are ethical and respect users freedom, we should fight for our rights now that we are able to, because one day we won't be able to do so.
Cancerous subscrib models companies are pushing these days are the reason open-source is rising. (Both in quality and popularity)
Todays programmers should be happy for open source today. In the 80's all software compilers were close sourced. You had to purchase all compilers in order to write code if you wanted to go beyond basic unless you knew machine language. Today you have all resources you need to learn coding and start making software without spending a dime.
Old nerdy coders like me always shared our source code in the 70's and 80's. Government, nasa, and giant companies do it. Only way you get the unknown genius minds out there looking at it. Even close source software have open source components to them
Amazing video! What do you think about Apple way, apple software and OS?
450k and you can not live from it, you are doing something wrong – go get partnerships, sponsors,.. then we can get even more great vids 😉
Because closed source it means developers can put nasty tracking and exploiting stuff inside a software and you'd never know. And then the data on your PC will never be truly yours alone.
I don't think the people who say everything should be open source say that because they want everything for free. The main reason people want software to be open source is to be able to make sure that it isn't malware and that they can trust the tools they use.
Do you want some might be boost for the system tutorial? Just for fun.
I didn't touch system as editing or remove them, just put them to other place.
It might be used on Linux but i sisnt test it 😆
I mean didn't, phone keyboard 😆
I could just explain how it done but i rather do a little video. If yes i can try to record from phone and use program to screenrecord it.
In order to lock something, you have to work hard, inventing mechanisms for locks and padlocks, and then pay a lot for bodyguards and enforcers. Therefore, I suspect that the benefits for the actual creators themselves may be the same, or even smaller, because it is not really the creator, but its owner, the protector … who takes the glory of his achievements … 🙂 The concept of this type of protection leads to the creation of such the same dependencies as with current problems in real life and we have: key holders, librarians .., and law makers (prohibitions and orders) who manage it, and not the creators.
The first ones need entities that threaten the second ones, so that they are necessary, like regulators, and a somewhat unclear interdependence in driving threats is created.
Open source taught me docker, nodejs, devops, packaging. Knowledge is only reason one needs for loving Foss projects.
Ofcourse, the team behind, also matters. There have been many times where maintainer just blocked me because I asked them to teach me how to properly contribute to their project.
First of all, I don't agree to having pay a "subscription" every year to use someone's program. I never ever support those programs. If I can't buy the program as a once off, I don't use it.
Open source isn't for the greedy. If you use someone's source, give them credit for developing it and sharing out there.
Microsoft has used lots of people's sources to enriched themselves. That's why they baught github. I see lots of problems coming in the future with open source, cloud crap and the like.
I prefer open source but will gladly use closed source if it meets my needs better.
HOWEVER, one issue I've encountered which annoys me is some closed sourced games with online capabilities will not open source the server hosting related code when they decide to no longer support it. That means I basically have a game I purchased but cannot enjoy.
Chris need a good alternative to Razer audio software. I got openRGB and love it.