[late]

I still recommend sacrificing the goat. It's really the only way to be sure.

We had problems with our printer, turned out to be the cable.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rich

@Rancid is a pretty knowledgeable guy too. Not discounting your knowledge or experience. However, on this one, Rancid is right. Open source projects have enjoyed corporate support, such as Linux Ubuntu LTS. How do you think they reliably get patch updates out to that operating system? It's because it has corporate support.

Edit:

Here, it comes from Ubuntu's website: "What does standard security support mean?
Canonical employees working on the Ubuntu Security Team provide security updates for supported software in the Ubuntu distribution. Security updates are in part prioritized based on severity of impact, exploitability and number of affected users."

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ

This is Ubuntu's download site: https://ubuntu.com/#download

[wat0n]

I legit hope @Cartertonian hasn't had to deal with this issue for over a year now.

[Rich]

Not discounting your knowledge or experience. However, on this one, Rancid is right. Open source projects have enjoyed corporate support, such as Linux Ubuntu LTS. How do you think they reliably get patch updates out to that operating system? It's because it has corporate support.

Jesus Christ! How many times do we have to go through this. I never thought opens source projects didn't have corporate support. And I never thought they shouldn't have corporate support. I wholly endorse the 80 / 20 model. 80% open source with 20% closed source built on top.

I have posted the NVidea fuck you video on PoFo. The whole point of the thing is that Linus thinks that NVidea is not doing enough to support Linux.

@Rancid imagined that I thought that open source projects were never dependant on corporate support. I didn't. When I explained this too him he chose to double down, imagining that I hadn't been aware of this and was choosing to cover up my lack of knowledge. This was and is an absurd belief to assign to me. Now for example there was an occasion on the forum where the distinction of geodetic and geocentric latitude came up. I had not been aware of this distinction Once you've been told about its obvious, and I thought why did I not think about it. However at no point did I feel the need to pretend that I had been aware of geodetic / geodesic distinction. At no point did I feel the need to pretend that I'd been aware of something that I hadn't.

Furthermore it is not merely that I was aware of the huge degree of corporate support for open-source, I have actually been an advocate for it and have for example made the case for how might be able to get Microsoft to fund Scala Native in another forum.

And yet more @Rancid there is no excuse for your stupid accusation because if you had been paying attention you would have remembered that I have praised Twitter on this forum for their support for Scala.

[Rancid]

@Rich you are still dancing around. You chose to be offended by my post. We can get off that, because my post was not to offend you.

Anyway, given that you apparently do know (that sucessful) open source projects are corporate sponsored. How does this make open source moral relative to closed source? Practically speaking.

[Rich]

Anyway, given that you apparently do know (that sucessful) open source projects are corporate sponsored. How does this make open source moral relative to closed source? Practically speaking.

Open source is not always more moral than class source, my argument is that it is desirable that core software infrastructure is opensource. A situation where you are relying on trust for your operating system is to my mind highly undesirable. Sure opensource is no guarantee, that the software is not acting malevolent or accidentally harmful ways, but I feel a much higher level of trust that anyone can examine the source code, even if I don't choose to examine it myself.

The second is the ability to modify it or have others modify it for one. I don't claim KDE is perfect or that it is everyone's perfect, but to me its intolerable that some corporation should decide how my desktop is organised.

But the third point is the need to attenuate this incredible concentrations of power that closed source operating systems enable.

The fourth point is that for core functionality, functionality which has wide spread use open source does produce higher quality code. We need the freedom to innovate but also there are huge gains to be reached when we move towards common standards. Now I'm quite aware of the limitations of opensource monetarisation models. I've never bought the "What about Red Hat" bollocks. its long been obvious to me that the Red Hat monetarisation model was not reproducible. there could only ever be one Red Hat. You can only produce Grand Theft Auto through a closed source monetarisaton model. if someone hands ownership of the IP for Grand Theft Auto 5 don't hold you're breath waiting for me to opensource it.

The majority of software should be closed source or at least contain a closed source component.