1 Nov
2016
1 Nov
'16
2:17 p.m.
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(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
Il 31/10/2016 20:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
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(a)jabber.fsfe.org - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user