Open source and proprietary software development have very different goals. Open source is generally about making software that’s useful. Proprietary software’s goal is to make money by any means necessary. Viewing it from that angle, open source devs and the community are more motivated to keep an eye out for backdoors. While proprietary software, they won’t give a fuck until something affects their bottom line. Just because of that, I feel safer using open source software in general.
And the reason that it’s sad is that most of the individual veneers on proprietary projects deeply about a project itself and have the same goals as they do with open source software, which is just to make something that’s useful and do cool shit.
Yep, the business itself can force them not take care of problems or force them to go in directions that are counter to their core motivations.
Viewing it from that angle, open source devs and the community are more motivated to keep an eye out for backdoors.
I think it is less an issue of motivation and more an issue of selection bias. Lots of open source projects fall out of support. Lots of them are riddled with bugs. Lots of them have clunky interfaces and high latency and a myriad of other problems that never get solved, because the original designers never put in the leg work.
But the ones that do have a lively community and a robust design are the ones that get mainstream adaptation. And this produces a virtuous cycle of new users, some of whom become new contributors, who expand functionality, and attract more new users. When you have a critical mass of participants, they collectively have an interest in seeing the project get resources to improve and overcome obstacles and keep the project alive.
Private developers also have an elephant’s graveyard of failed software. But they don’t subsist on the same kind of critical mass of participation. A private development company really only needs one or two whale clients to sustain themselves. Microsoft had IBM. Oracle had Exxon. TurboTax has the IRS. Look at how LLM developers like OpenAI stick around with billions in funding despite enjoying no real revenue stream.
I would say that the maxim “If you’re not the client then you’re the product” technically holds in both instances. There’s no particular reason why a social media platform like Facebook or TikTok couldn’t be open source and still ruthlessly data mine its end-users. In the same vein, a private firm like Palantir or Fidelity or AT&T has ample incentive to keep their systems secure because security is at the heart of their bottom line.
Open source and proprietary software development have very different goals. Open source is generally about making software that’s useful. Proprietary software’s goal is to make money by any means necessary. Viewing it from that angle, open source devs and the community are more motivated to keep an eye out for backdoors. While proprietary software, they won’t give a fuck until something affects their bottom line. Just because of that, I feel safer using open source software in general.
The sad part is is that you’re right.
And the reason that it’s sad is that most of the individual veneers on proprietary projects deeply about a project itself and have the same goals as they do with open source software, which is just to make something that’s useful and do cool shit.
Yep, the business itself can force them not take care of problems or force them to go in directions that are counter to their core motivations.
I think it is less an issue of motivation and more an issue of selection bias. Lots of open source projects fall out of support. Lots of them are riddled with bugs. Lots of them have clunky interfaces and high latency and a myriad of other problems that never get solved, because the original designers never put in the leg work.
But the ones that do have a lively community and a robust design are the ones that get mainstream adaptation. And this produces a virtuous cycle of new users, some of whom become new contributors, who expand functionality, and attract more new users. When you have a critical mass of participants, they collectively have an interest in seeing the project get resources to improve and overcome obstacles and keep the project alive.
Private developers also have an elephant’s graveyard of failed software. But they don’t subsist on the same kind of critical mass of participation. A private development company really only needs one or two whale clients to sustain themselves. Microsoft had IBM. Oracle had Exxon. TurboTax has the IRS. Look at how LLM developers like OpenAI stick around with billions in funding despite enjoying no real revenue stream.
I would say that the maxim “If you’re not the client then you’re the product” technically holds in both instances. There’s no particular reason why a social media platform like Facebook or TikTok couldn’t be open source and still ruthlessly data mine its end-users. In the same vein, a private firm like Palantir or Fidelity or AT&T has ample incentive to keep their systems secure because security is at the heart of their bottom line.