On 9/13/2022 4:38 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > The users. They stop using software or any product that does not work > > well or is more trouble than it is worth. Then the entity, whether > > a free/oss or proprietary provider ends up shutting down > > the enterprise. > > But, being Free Software, any remaining user can keep using it, > improving it, checking if it contains any back doors, hire someone else > to do it, etc... > > >> You do realize that nobody enforces that on proprietary software > >> either, right? > > The users do, in the marketplace - and what is not used by enough > > users eventually disappears. > > That's right. And then you're typically completely screwed even if it > happened to work well for you. > > The company will also blissfully ignore your requests if you're part of > too-small a slice of their users. Ever tried to get an `armhf` binary for > a proprietary GNU/Linux software? > > > I think it is true that the "best" software development model depends > > less on free/oss vs. proprietary and more on the wisdom, foresight, > > integrity, and technical expertise of those doing the work and making > > the important decisions. > > I don't care which is better. I just prefer not to depend on the > goodwill of a company (most of which I know act against my interest; > probably inevitably because they are beholden to their shareholders).
Of course you know many of those companies that you know act against your interests have employees who "volunteer" to contribute to free/oss software projects, so in practice the free/oss software is not free from this problem, but a truly open project can make it possible to find out which volunteers are not acting in the true interests of those who advocate for the benefits of free/oss software, and this is not possible in secretive, proprietary organizations. Best regards, Chuck
