Obviously both open and closed source have their advantages and disadvantages and I'll gladly pay for a closed source program if it meets my needs. I also don't mind closed source forks of open source projects (Chrome is a good example). And while I'm the last person to ever say "there oughtta be a law" I do believe that all social media software and algorithms should be required to be open source just for the sake of protecting the public from whatever nefarious crap Big Tech (and the CCP) are up to.
IMO… There is a rule that everyone should follow. Don’t ever put information on the internet that you don’t want everyone to know including through emails or social media. Best place for that info is inside your own head.
@@donaldmickunas8552 Just wait till brain chips become all the rage and it becomes almost required to have one like it's nearly required to have an internet connection nowadays just to live life (and also needing to have a smartphone to a lesser extent, but depending on your circumstances you might be able to use a dumb phone, its just really difficult with how society is structured nowadays)
*Things that need/should to be FOSS:* -Any sort of library/Framework in software development -Packaging, Compiling and Codec Software -Anything even remotely concerning with security, encryption, cryptography -Anything using Blockchain Technology *Things that can't realistically be FOSS:* -Anti-Piracy/Anti-Tampering Protections -Anti-Cheating Software/ Netcode of Online Games -Software running on weapons (ICBM, Targeting Systems, Radar Systems, Fighter Jet Autopilots ...) -Incredibly Expensive to develop Software (big Neural Networks, AAA Games, Civilian Rocket Software, Manufacturing Maschine Software)
@@felixfourcolor Reasons: Libraries/Frameworks: need to be FOSS to ensure quality and security Packaging, compiling, codec: ditto Anything security: need to be open Source so anyone can find&report bugs, and can learn about potential weaknesses. And to ensure there are no backdoors. Blockchain: to ensure security and lack of backdoors. Anti-Piracy/Anti-Tampering/Anti-Cheat: Specifically made against bad actors, revealing the inner workings drastically reduces effectiveness, since the attackers can look at the code more easily to avoid getting caught. Weapon Systems: Can't be open because enemies or third parties could easily replicate the tech and evade it. Incredibly expensive Software: Spending millions on research and developement makes no sense economically if you can't sell the product and every competitor can create his own version easily.
@@felixfourcolor About the anti-piracy and anti-cheat software, both applications are in the service of protecting intellectual properties, something that is inherently antagonic to the concept of open source. Weapon software tends to be closed-source precisely for security purposes, especially when such a weapon has military and nation-defense purposes. With software with high development costs, closed source guarantees the exclusivity of monetization of such programs, necessary to fund their development.
@@mayconlcruzyou are not quite right about intellectual property being antithical to floss software. all licenses get their value from how they interact with ip law, but the level of that value is proportional to how much free cash you have to enforce it, so in practice floss projects compete on developing faster, rather than on expensive litigation. the idea that antivirus and anticheat software need to be closed to work so that the bad actors don't know the internals is just the old security by obscurity argument, which was not convincing when microsoft was first using it, and has not got any more convincing since. anticheat is like pay per view, it only really works when done server side, looking for cheating and obsoleting the specific implementation regularly, as it is an arms race. anything else is like dvd security, it works for a while, then becomes irrelevant as the lifetime exceeds the secure time.
A piece of software being open source isn't the deciding factor for me, like if software A is proprietary and has more features which I need and software B is open source and doesn't have them then I'm going to pick software A. However, if both software A and B I would use the same feature set across them both then I'd pick the open source version
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.
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.
what i like about open source is transparency , and being sure that my data / privacy is safe i like some closed source software but sometimes i see them as scam with violating some privacy or charging overexagerated amount of money for support and licence , i can list ORACLE and SAP for the "support" and windows for privacy but for example Redhat and Suse are doing good imo, and a lot of web services that charge some money for the hosting are fine too even some small programs with one purchase and not a lifetime subscription are good
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.
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.
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.
I've long pushed the idea that game engines should be open sourced where as the assets and game specific code can be proprietary so the developers can make money to continue their development. Bottom line is that the bills need to be paid and proprietary code and assets are the best way to do it. I've never understood the Open Source extremism, there is a happy medium between the 2.
this is the problem of open core development. on the one hand, pure full stack proprietary development is extremely expensive, and a lot of the low level stuff is needed, but does not bring in any income, so opening it up or using open alternatives saves you a fortune. on the other hand, as this core of open software gets more capable over time, it starts to chip away at the lower levels of profitable closed code, squeezing the profitability of the entire code base. it is a tightrope act where the only long term answer is to keep growing the top of the stack, and finding new niche functionality to grow the stack, which is non trivial to do in practice, which is why so many companies are struggling with it.
I do not use any closed-source software wherever that is possible. So for example, on my main workstation and all of my other general-purpose PCs, there's no closed-source software at all. My phone runs Android, so unfortunately it's not practical to avoid all closed-source software. Same with consumer electronics... you sometimes can't get away from closed-source software. The reason I won't use closed-source software if I can help it is that I don't trust it. Closed-source software might be spying on you. Its publisher might unilaterally switch from a purchase model to a subscription model to suck more money out of you. If it breaks, you can't fix it. And as a bonus, my annual software licensing budget is $0.00. The lack-of-trust reasons are also why I won't have any IOT devices in my house. They're notorious for terrible security, invasiveness, and turning into bricks if the company decides not to support them or going out of business. With open-source software, no third-party can brick your device. I'm also a software developer, and I work on several open-source projects. I do this because it's fun, because it creates community, and because it does in some small way give back for all the amazing open-source software that I use.
@@donaldmickunas8552 Except for the BIOS on my workstation, yep. Obviously, there are embedded micro-controllers in things like the disk drives that I have no control over... but everything I can control is open-source.
@@shanent5793 The one I've been using as a daily driver for a couple of decades? Debian Linux is the OS and all software installed on it is open-source. Zero closed-source whatsoever. And I do video editing, accounting, office document editing, image editing... all the usual things you'd expect.
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
I learned so much from reading open source code and contributing to it early in my career which led me to where I'm at right now (Eng Manager at FAANG) so I'm very much PRO open source.
If you have a super good software, close it and sell it. If you are super good at support, sell your service and give WHAT you support away for free 😎 Basically what SuSE GmbH, Canonical, RedHat etc do. 💪
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 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.
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.
I like your logic. From my point of view, it seems the closed environment would be more prone to be highly focused and costly in terms of hardware required to develop new and unique innovations that need a monetary return to stay afloat. Voluntary donations are not always enough as I am sure you know. However, I am an advocate of the open-source concept. Where would the server farms be without Linux? Your Windows debloat has added more service time to my aging Windows machine that I have to keep for various programs that 40+ years of muscle memory demands. (I also use the Apple ecosystem.). AKA older than dirt nerd...
LMAO….last I heard, he is using Debian Sid, Windows, and MacOS. His home network allows him to run them concurrently on different machines and exchange data easily. He has specific use cases for each OS.
4:53 --- sir Chris, you and your background look far, far better in this setup and camera angle at 4:53 👍 than any of your other steaming layouts. I miss you doing it predominantly this way. May I cordially advise that whereas your other setups are cluttered and distracting? Btw, excellent video today 🔥 👍 (Hope your gym sesh's are continuing in 2023!) Kindest regards, neighbours and friends.
Thanks for the feedback, I like the more minimal angle as well. I added the other just as contrast to see what other thought, going forward I'll go more towards the minimal shot.
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.
The debt based monetary system is the problem with our society today. Because centralized power keeps inflating away our purchasing power we have less time/money/energy to contribute to something like Open Source. In other words we are never able to fully reap the fruit of our labor. When the world goes back to sound money and humans aren't squeezed so hard, there will be high possibility that society at large will start to value FOSS en masse, and finally have the ability to even provide support in the first place.
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.
Hi Chris (or anyone), a small question that's been bugging me. Your video about Obsidian led me to start using it; great program, thanks. I'm just curious because it's the first program I've come across that doesn't seem to need a "save" button...does it save automatically? does it somehow not need to save because 'markup'? what's going on? I still can't help pressing Ctrl-S, but wondering why it's different.
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.
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.
Sounds like you come down more in the BSD philosophy of open/closed source. That is where I tend to fall as well. Seems to me the most reasonable position.
@@ashishpatel350 At least apple mostly does its own thing with its walled garden. Microsoft assimilated many things (the vast majority of general proprietary applications, games, business applications, proprietary engineering / creative applications) into its closed source windows ecosystem back in the 1990s and 2000s, and we're still feeling the effects of that today.
@@huaen8880 not really Microsoft allowed for pcs to become mainstream. Osx was trash from the beginning and still is years behind Microsoft and open source
@@ashishpatel350this is not quite accurate. the home and sme markets were already thriving before ibm introduced the pc. like with mainframes, people were realising that these systems needed to work together, and conventions and protocols came along to enable this. microsoft then came along to parasitically capture these markets, and with adopt, embrace, extend as their policy made things deliberately harder to interoperate and force lock in to force more people to have to get caught in their ecosystem. this caused massive harm to the industry, killing far better products, and it is only recently while the windows desktop monopoly is failing that some of this harm is finally starting to go away. the computer revolution was inevitable, but the form it took was a lot healthier before microsoft started abusing the market. it is starting to get that back now that windows 11 and 12 requirements only really work for the already saturated developed world market, and the rest of the world is being forced to look seriously at other viable alternatives.
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.
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.
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?
I'd like everything to be free and open, but that just wouldn't totally work in a capitalist society. Though some companies do successfully make money through selling support or having subscriptions they sell on top of the open source software.
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
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.
I always assumed that the biggest reason was to get experience in serious coding and showcase your skills to the world, thus getting a better wage in the long run
This is an amazing video! I was wondering about so many of these things, and it's great to hear some fundamental questions about open source development answered!
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.
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.
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
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.
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 trust windows, android, IOS and many closed s. with respecting privacy. Something that is way more easy checked with open source = more secure.
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
I will state with closed-source you are running unknown code while with open source you are running (hopefully by you or others) reviewed code. I would also state NSA (or insert whatever spying gov agency here) backdoors would also be a nope on Open Source because of the community finding it, and disapproving a project for having it.... Open Source is anti-spyware, while windows or other closed source projects seems pro on that (not all, but still... how do you know without breaking the terms of service?). so another plus is that spyware is less frequent with open source while closed source... might have it. Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
Their is too much confusion about the terms "open source" and "Open Source". Many zealots state they mean the same thing. They don't. If i give or get code unfettered and free for my needs, then it is open source to me. The same code does not have to be unfettered and free to Kim Jong-Un to be deemed open source, but it has to be unfettered and free to him to be deemed Open Source.
what kind of license would the former fall under? i try to avoid open source whenever possible, sticking only to Free Software, though most open source software is also free software, but not necessarily so
@@shallex5744 the former is "open source" the latter is "OSI Open Source". The important thing here is that projects of both types show when a user searches google for "open source".
@@rollinkendal8130 gnu gpl is a Free Software license, which while all Free Software would qualify as Open Source, not all Open Source licenses count as Free Software, as some of the "Open Source" licenses are too restrictive and impose limitations on what is able to be done with the software, while still qualifying as "Open Source". but even that aside, i'm wondering if there are any licenses that allow some code to be "unfettered and free" to you, but not to me, or Kim Jong-Un, and what those licenses would be
I have been using Linux basically since the mid 1990's and as my daily driver since 2008 and is "my choice". The key word there being "choice". It is what I choose. Most people choose otherwise. That said, it is all about choice in what you want, need or choose. If you choose closed source then that is awesome. If you choose open source then that is awesome. I would not ever like so many people do, sit here and say to another person that they should use this or that because of "philosophical reasons". In my honest opinion open source software and developers are incredible. That said zealots like Richard Stallman have done more to HARM open source than anything else there is. The minute someone makes demands that everything must comply with their philosophy they have already lost. Use what works for you. For the people saying it is open therefore I can see it and know what it is doing. I laugh at 90% of them as if they actually opened some code they wouldn't have a clue what they were looking at. For those who do, go ahead and look at the Linux Kernel code, review it all. When you are done reviewing it, you will be 25 years older, and will have to start over as the changes made in that time will take you another 25 years. I personally use it because it works for me. If there comes a time where it doesn't work for me, I will imply use something else. It is a tool, and I try to use the tools that will work best for me. So if releasing your code to the community works for you then more power to you. If not releasing your code to the world doesn't work for you then more power to you. Use what works for you!
ja open-source (free!) for Everything is a leftie dream but nothing but a dream that can never work as long as we (and we all do) live in a capitalistic system, but it is substantially functional and necessary to challenge the best developers of the big companies as they absorb the ideas to do better and as we see now MS is under real pressure for the first time to come up with new busyness-models to go for the future, we will see a free light windows-version soon, otherwise they will be history as so many before...
Some critics with your video I have is that you say all of open source is not profitable by your own experience well what about nextcloud and GitLab 2 you say we want all software to by open source first you asumed that. is that the truth mabey but you did not ask or make a pole 3 not open source software is free (as in beer) you pay for the soft ware and the source code
the data is already in, and the vast majority of open source projects are limping along using barely enough funding to get some work done, but nowhere near enough to enable enough developers to be self funding. there are a few projects which get enough funding, but these are usually the exception, not the rule.
@@lnee various countries are now implementing rules that say that if you spend government money collecting data or buying software, it must be open by default.
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 ”solo play” with porn gives a man. But is Dr Trish talking anything about that? No! I think she hates men.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
In my experience with an open source project, donations are extremely rare, everyone just wants everything for free.
My brother in Christ I'm poor
Obviously both open and closed source have their advantages and disadvantages and I'll gladly pay for a closed source program if it meets my needs. I also don't mind closed source forks of open source projects (Chrome is a good example). And while I'm the last person to ever say "there oughtta be a law" I do believe that all social media software and algorithms should be required to be open source just for the sake of protecting the public from whatever nefarious crap Big Tech (and the CCP) are up to.
IMO… There is a rule that everyone should follow. Don’t ever put information on the internet that you don’t want everyone to know including through emails or social media. Best place for that info is inside your own head.
@@donaldmickunas8552 Just wait till brain chips become all the rage and it becomes almost required to have one like it's nearly required to have an internet connection nowadays just to live life (and also needing to have a smartphone to a lesser extent, but depending on your circumstances you might be able to use a dumb phone, its just really difficult with how society is structured nowadays)
*Things that need/should to be FOSS:*
-Any sort of library/Framework in software development
-Packaging, Compiling and Codec Software
-Anything even remotely concerning with security, encryption, cryptography
-Anything using Blockchain Technology
*Things that can't realistically be FOSS:*
-Anti-Piracy/Anti-Tampering Protections
-Anti-Cheating Software/ Netcode of Online Games
-Software running on weapons (ICBM, Targeting Systems, Radar Systems, Fighter Jet Autopilots ...)
-Incredibly Expensive to develop Software (big Neural Networks, AAA Games, Civilian Rocket Software, Manufacturing Maschine Software)
Can you explain reasons for these?
@@felixfourcolor
Reasons:
Libraries/Frameworks: need to be FOSS to ensure quality and security
Packaging, compiling, codec: ditto
Anything security: need to be open Source so anyone can find&report bugs, and can learn about potential weaknesses. And to ensure there are no backdoors.
Blockchain: to ensure security and lack of backdoors.
Anti-Piracy/Anti-Tampering/Anti-Cheat:
Specifically made against bad actors, revealing the inner workings drastically reduces effectiveness, since the attackers can look at the code more easily to avoid getting caught.
Weapon Systems: Can't be open because enemies or third parties could easily replicate the tech and evade it.
Incredibly expensive Software:
Spending millions on research and developement makes no sense economically if you can't sell the product and every competitor can create his own version easily.
@@felixfourcolor About the anti-piracy and anti-cheat software, both applications are in the service of protecting intellectual properties, something that is inherently antagonic to the concept of open source. Weapon software tends to be closed-source precisely for security purposes, especially when such a weapon has military and nation-defense purposes. With software with high development costs, closed source guarantees the exclusivity of monetization of such programs, necessary to fund their development.
@@mayconlcruzyou are not quite right about intellectual property being antithical to floss software. all licenses get their value from how they interact with ip law, but the level of that value is proportional to how much free cash you have to enforce it, so in practice floss projects compete on developing faster, rather than on expensive litigation.
the idea that antivirus and anticheat software need to be closed to work so that the bad actors don't know the internals is just the old security by obscurity argument, which was not convincing when microsoft was first using it, and has not got any more convincing since.
anticheat is like pay per view, it only really works when done server side, looking for cheating and obsoleting the specific implementation regularly, as it is an arms race. anything else is like dvd security, it works for a while, then becomes irrelevant as the lifetime exceeds the secure time.
A piece of software being open source isn't the deciding factor for me, like if software A is proprietary and has more features which I need and software B is open source and doesn't have them then I'm going to pick software A. However, if both software A and B I would use the same feature set across them both then I'd pick the open source version
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.
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.
what i like about open source is transparency , and being sure that my data / privacy is safe
i like some closed source software
but sometimes i see them as scam with violating some privacy or charging overexagerated amount of money for support and licence , i can list ORACLE and SAP for the "support"
and windows for privacy
but for example Redhat and Suse are doing good imo,
and a lot of web services that charge some money for the hosting are fine too
even some small programs with one purchase and not a lifetime subscription are good
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.
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.
Open source because is open..free. anyone can see what's going on and make his changes..God save Dev's..
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.
I've long pushed the idea that game engines should be open sourced where as the assets and game specific code can be proprietary so the developers can make money to continue their development. Bottom line is that the bills need to be paid and proprietary code and assets are the best way to do it. I've never understood the Open Source extremism, there is a happy medium between the 2.
There is a open source game engine that is growing a lot recently, go check out Godot4 if you want.
this is the problem of open core development. on the one hand, pure full stack proprietary development is extremely expensive, and a lot of the low level stuff is needed, but does not bring in any income, so opening it up or using open alternatives saves you a fortune. on the other hand, as this core of open software gets more capable over time, it starts to chip away at the lower levels of profitable closed code, squeezing the profitability of the entire code base.
it is a tightrope act where the only long term answer is to keep growing the top of the stack, and finding new niche functionality to grow the stack, which is non trivial to do in practice, which is why so many companies are struggling with it.
Thanks , mixing between open and closed source can help a lot.
I do not use any closed-source software wherever that is possible. So for example, on my main workstation and all of my other general-purpose PCs, there's no closed-source software at all. My phone runs Android, so unfortunately it's not practical to avoid all closed-source software. Same with consumer electronics... you sometimes can't get away from closed-source software.
The reason I won't use closed-source software if I can help it is that I don't trust it. Closed-source software might be spying on you. Its publisher might unilaterally switch from a purchase model to a subscription model to suck more money out of you. If it breaks, you can't fix it. And as a bonus, my annual software licensing budget is $0.00.
The lack-of-trust reasons are also why I won't have any IOT devices in my house. They're notorious for terrible security, invasiveness, and turning into bricks if the company decides not to support them or going out of business. With open-source software, no third-party can brick your device.
I'm also a software developer, and I work on several open-source projects. I do this because it's fun, because it creates community, and because it does in some small way give back for all the amazing open-source software that I use.
So, to be clear, all the drivers on your systems are open source as well?
What 'practical' workstation has no closed source software at all?
@@donaldmickunas8552 Except for the BIOS on my workstation, yep.
Obviously, there are embedded micro-controllers in things like the disk drives that I have no control over... but everything I can control is open-source.
@@shanent5793 The one I've been using as a daily driver for a couple of decades?
Debian Linux is the OS and all software installed on it is open-source. Zero closed-source whatsoever. And I do video editing, accounting, office document editing, image editing... all the usual things you'd expect.
@@dfs-comedy it's not practical for most to use a decades old workstation. The only current one is Talos'
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
I learned so much from reading open source code and contributing to it early in my career which led me to where I'm at right now (Eng Manager at FAANG) so I'm very much PRO open source.
If you have a super good software, close it and sell it.
If you are super good at support, sell your service and give WHAT you support away for free 😎
Basically what SuSE GmbH, Canonical, RedHat etc do. 💪
Hey Chris,
I like your position on this issue. Great video. You still ROCK!
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 there already is a video close enough on topic, "We are Using GitHub WRONG!" released 3 months ago
@@RadioactiveBlueberry Thanks, found it.
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.
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.
I like your logic. From my point of view, it seems the closed environment would be more prone to be highly focused and costly in terms of hardware required to develop new and unique innovations that need a monetary return to stay afloat. Voluntary donations are not always enough as I am sure you know.
However, I am an advocate of the open-source concept. Where would the server farms be without Linux? Your Windows debloat has added more service time to my aging Windows machine that I have to keep for various programs that 40+ years of muscle memory demands. (I also use the Apple ecosystem.). AKA older than dirt nerd...
Hey Chris, what OS do you use in your Desktop PC ? (Fedora/Ubuntu/Debian)
His recent video named "My new daily driver laptop" runs Ubuntu, if I remember correctly.
"Distributions don't matter." So he puts a window manager on whatever.
Those are all Linux and they all use SystemD.... they're the same lol
LMAO….last I heard, he is using Debian Sid, Windows, and MacOS. His home network allows him to run them concurrently on different machines and exchange data easily. He has specific use cases for each OS.
4:53 --- sir Chris, you and your background look far, far better in this setup and camera angle at 4:53 👍 than any of your other steaming layouts. I miss you doing it predominantly this way. May I cordially advise that whereas your other setups are cluttered and distracting?
Btw, excellent video today 🔥 👍
(Hope your gym sesh's are continuing in 2023!)
Kindest regards, neighbours and friends.
Thanks for the feedback, I like the more minimal angle as well. I added the other just as contrast to see what other thought, going forward I'll go more towards the minimal shot.
@@ChrisTitusTech 👍
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.
The debt based monetary system is the problem with our society today. Because centralized power keeps inflating away our purchasing power we have less time/money/energy to contribute to something like Open Source. In other words we are never able to fully reap the fruit of our labor. When the world goes back to sound money and humans aren't squeezed so hard, there will be high possibility that society at large will start to value FOSS en masse, and finally have the ability to even provide support in the first place.
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.
You do good work keep it up.
A good example of that is RedHat and Fedora. RedHat is commercial but must profit immensely from the Fedora community.
Hi Chris (or anyone), a small question that's been bugging me. Your video about Obsidian led me to start using it; great program, thanks.
I'm just curious because it's the first program I've come across that doesn't seem to need a "save" button...does it save automatically? does it somehow not need to save because 'markup'? what's going on?
I still can't help pressing Ctrl-S, but wondering why it's different.
Obsidian does automatically save. Enjoy!
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.
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.
Sounds like you come down more in the BSD philosophy of open/closed source. That is where I tend to fall as well. Seems to me the most reasonable position.
The worst closed source by a long way is Windows. I hate them.
Lmfao I'd say osx is worse
@@ashishpatel350 At least apple mostly does its own thing with its walled garden. Microsoft assimilated many things (the vast majority of general proprietary applications, games, business applications, proprietary engineering / creative applications) into its closed source windows ecosystem back in the 1990s and 2000s, and we're still feeling the effects of that today.
@@huaen8880 not really Microsoft allowed for pcs to become mainstream.
Osx was trash from the beginning and still is years behind Microsoft and open source
@@huaen8880 apple hate GPL license hence you can't find open source software in Mac app Store.
@@ashishpatel350this is not quite accurate. the home and sme markets were already thriving before ibm introduced the pc. like with mainframes, people were realising that these systems needed to work together, and conventions and protocols came along to enable this. microsoft then came along to parasitically capture these markets, and with adopt, embrace, extend as their policy made things deliberately harder to interoperate and force lock in to force more people to have to get caught in their ecosystem.
this caused massive harm to the industry, killing far better products, and it is only recently while the windows desktop monopoly is failing that some of this harm is finally starting to go away.
the computer revolution was inevitable, but the form it took was a lot healthier before microsoft started abusing the market. it is starting to get that back now that windows 11 and 12 requirements only really work for the already saturated developed world market, and the rest of the world is being forced to look seriously at other viable alternatives.
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.
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.
Carey Holzman he uses closed for his customers. He said he can trust closed to work. He has customers pay for something work and not be changed.
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?
I'd like everything to be free and open, but that just wouldn't totally work in a capitalist society. Though some companies do successfully make money through selling support or having subscriptions they sell on top of the open source software.
Amazing video! What do you think about Apple way, apple software and OS?
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
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.
I always assumed that the biggest reason was to get experience in serious coding and showcase your skills to the world, thus getting a better wage in the long run
This is an amazing video! I was wondering about so many of these things, and it's great to hear some fundamental questions about open source development answered!
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.
The way doom and quake do it is brilliant, sad they didn't open source the new doom games engines
Hey Chris. did you explored ubuntu multipass on Apple silicon mac ?
we don’t need separate hardware going fwd …we can use Linux on Mac
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.
Now I want a video of Chris roasting the worst closed-source software
because he wants his program to be the best it can be
Love your work much appreciated and love the updated studio looks great 👍👍
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
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.
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.
Chris need a good alternative to Razer audio software. I got openRGB and love it.
Nice video compresion!
Great Video !
Same I'm in that boat (the grey area)
Another great video Chris; I agree with your assessment, conclusions and opinions on this topic.
great vid, programming feels like a foreign world to me - enjoyed your analysis
Thanks for the video!
Now it is more clare for me!
Blending opensource and closed source is the way.
I don't trust windows, android, IOS and many closed s. with respecting privacy. Something that is way more easy checked with open source = more secure.
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
It's not always about the money.
I will state with closed-source you are running unknown code while with open source you are running (hopefully by you or others) reviewed code. I would also state NSA (or insert whatever spying gov agency here) backdoors would also be a nope on Open Source because of the community finding it, and disapproving a project for having it.... Open Source is anti-spyware, while windows or other closed source projects seems pro on that (not all, but still... how do you know without breaking the terms of service?). so another plus is that spyware is less frequent with open source while closed source... might have it.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
For learning open-source is best
I pick free and open source apps because it's good if you don't have enough money to buy paid, closed source apps.
Thank you!
I litterally thought Open Sourse meant that it was open to review fro other people and any malware etc would be found so it clean.
Their is too much confusion about the terms "open source" and "Open Source". Many zealots state they mean the same thing. They don't. If i give or get code unfettered and free for my needs, then it is open source to me. The same code does not have to be unfettered and free to Kim Jong-Un to be deemed open source, but it has to be unfettered and free to him to be deemed Open Source.
what kind of license would the former fall under? i try to avoid open source whenever possible, sticking only to Free Software, though most open source software is also free software, but not necessarily so
@@shallex5744 the former is "open source" the latter is "OSI Open Source". The important thing here is that projects of both types show when a user searches google for "open source".
@@rollinkendal8130 yeah but what kind of software license would apply to the former, is what i want to know
@@shallex5744 the former could be mit or gnu or apache or "mit except for kim jong-un". It is not one specific license.
@@rollinkendal8130 gnu gpl is a Free Software license, which while all Free Software would qualify as Open Source, not all Open Source licenses count as Free Software, as some of the "Open Source" licenses are too restrictive and impose limitations on what is able to be done with the software, while still qualifying as "Open Source". but even that aside, i'm wondering if there are any licenses that allow some code to be "unfettered and free" to you, but not to me, or Kim Jong-Un, and what those licenses would be
I have been using Linux basically since the mid 1990's and as my daily driver since 2008 and is "my choice". The key word there being "choice". It is what I choose. Most people choose otherwise. That said, it is all about choice in what you want, need or choose. If you choose closed source then that is awesome. If you choose open source then that is awesome. I would not ever like so many people do, sit here and say to another person that they should use this or that because of "philosophical reasons". In my honest opinion open source software and developers are incredible. That said zealots like Richard Stallman have done more to HARM open source than anything else there is. The minute someone makes demands that everything must comply with their philosophy they have already lost. Use what works for you. For the people saying it is open therefore I can see it and know what it is doing. I laugh at 90% of them as if they actually opened some code they wouldn't have a clue what they were looking at. For those who do, go ahead and look at the Linux Kernel code, review it all. When you are done reviewing it, you will be 25 years older, and will have to start over as the changes made in that time will take you another 25 years. I personally use it because it works for me. If there comes a time where it doesn't work for me, I will imply use something else. It is a tool, and I try to use the tools that will work best for me. So if releasing your code to the community works for you then more power to you. If not releasing your code to the world doesn't work for you then more power to you. Use what works for you!
Computer systems are toys forever. Don’t rely on it for security.
I agree ... Hate all the open sourced people hating closed sourced companies.
They littlerly fund all major open source projects
I listened to this video while playing Quake on a source port.v😎
Good video.
ja open-source (free!) for Everything is a leftie dream but nothing but a dream that can never work as long as we (and we all do) live in a capitalistic system, but it is substantially functional and necessary to challenge the best developers of the big companies as they absorb the ideas to do better and as we see now MS is under real pressure for the first time to come up with new busyness-models to go for the future, we will see a free light windows-version soon, otherwise they will be history as so many before...
Watch out for the political commentary or Titus will kick you over the Moon.
Say free a s in freedom please or simply libre.
I want everything to be free. Fight me XD Nah seriously tho. It would be a perfect world if it were all free. Too bloody perfect.
Oh man, you are going to ruffle lot of feathers. Lol
this is a good video to share with those toxic pricks who think open source is bad or think windows/mac is the only way to go lmao.
HEY MA IM IN THA TV
I like your old videos because everything looks so clunky.
Some critics with your video I have is that you say all of open source is not profitable by your own experience well what about nextcloud and GitLab 2 you say we want all software to by open source first you asumed that. is that the truth mabey but you did not ask or make a pole 3 not open source software is free (as in beer) you pay for the soft ware and the source code
the data is already in, and the vast majority of open source projects are limping along using barely enough funding to get some work done, but nowhere near enough to enable enough developers to be self funding. there are a few projects which get enough funding, but these are usually the exception, not the rule.
@@grokitall Yep. We need open source. but whos going to make, best way I see foward is treet it like roads and use taxs to fund it
@@lnee various countries are now implementing rules that say that if you spend government money collecting data or buying software, it must be open by default.
My ex had "open sore's"......🤣😅😂
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 ;-)
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 ”solo play” with porn gives a man.
But is Dr Trish talking anything about that? No!
I think she hates men.
You are looking Chubbier! 😅
Weak, normie view on this topic, sorry
1st comment