Re: [LAU] Look ma, I'm in the paper :)

Hey Massimo!

I cannot agree that this is "very different approach from the proprietary
software". There is no one proprietary software approach. Neither is there
any floss software approach.

Many proprietary developers are working closely with their users (Renoise
is a good example) and many open source developers refuse to get any input
from their users (will not give examples, enough controversy).

Another point is that for the end user it doesn't matter who reviews the
code - proprietary developer or a non-proprietary one. I get huge amount of
system updates to my Ubuntu. I have no idea what it all does. 4 months ago
one of these updates broke my wifi and I had to re-install network manager,
along with some of the drivers.

"I do not expect that a software that I use for recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?"

Really depends on your definition of "nasty" and "evil". Some people
consider lack of anonymity doing payments as "evil". The are, of course,
free to do that, but they should not expect others to agree with them.

In free software narratives there is a lot of black and white talk and
constant lack of nuances, like people failing to make a difference between
confidentiality and anonymity, or between logging anonymous user data and
spying.

For me, for example, not supporting modern devices, requiring installation
of special libraries to watch a DVD, providing broken or low quality
packages in official repos is evil and nasty.

I agree that certain segments of software, especially things like firmware,
drivers, maybe some sensitive portions of operating systems should probably
be at least partially open source. But I don't think that making everything
"free" and open source is a panacea.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Massimo Barbieri <massimo@email-addr-hidden> wrote:

> Il 31/10/2016 20:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
> > There is simply no time in the world that anyone can review code for
> > even one sophisticated
> > piece of software they are using. So those claims of free software
> > activists are mostly irrelevant
> > for the ordinary user and are no more than sound bites.
>
> Hi folks!
> If you do not have enough time, or competence like me, to review source
> code of the software you use, there are people that do this boring work
> for you in order to assure you that the software you use will do exactly
> what you expect. This people are the contributors developers, and we
> have at least 71 people who control Ardour[1] for you, and 26 who
> control Hydrogen[2] for you. And you can talk with them asking for bugs
> correction, new features or more stability, if this is what you are
> looking for. A very different approach from the proprietary software.
>
> I do not expect that a software that I use for recording music can do
> nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
> an operative system?
>
> I complete agree with yPhil, and that's why I applied the free software
> reasons to my music, and I share not only my songs, but even my single
> recordings tracks and Ardour project with a CC-BY-SA license.
>
> Please, see:
> http://johnoption.org/?page_id=9
>
> Ciao,
> Max-B
>
> 1. https://github.com/Ardour/ardour
> 2. https://github.com/hydrogen-music/hydrogen
>
> --
> IM: massimo@email-addr-hidden - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
>

-- 
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Nov 1 16:15:03 2016