-written? Read some of it. Does it look like the authors have
been careful, conscientious, and consistent? Does it look like code you’d want
to debug? You may need to.

This, 10,000x. I've repeated a similar mantra many, many times, and it's one
of the most important reasons I refuse to use proprietary software. You should
consider no software a black box, and consider the software you chose to use
carefully, because it's your responsibility to keep it in good working order.

~~~
bunderbunder
Making it someone else's responsibility to keep it in good working order is
the value proposition behind (good) proprietary software: You give them money,
they give you a support contract.

For a company with more money than development resources, or even just a
company whose development resources can be more profitably focused elsewhere,
this can be a quite reasonable trade to make.

~~~
vharuck
If a company behind proprietary software goes belly up, there's no support.
But there are always companies or even freelance devs who can be paid to
support open source code.

~~~
IggleSniggle
Proprietary _and closed source_. We make use of open source (but not open
license) proprietary software on my team.

------
raphlinus
My personal sense, from watching developments in this space, is that we are
going to have to find some way for taking on an open source dependency to be
an economic transaction, with money actually changing hands. With open source,
the code itself is free (in both the libre and gratis sense), but there are
other places to identify value. One of them is chain of custody - is there an
actual, somewhat responsible human being behind that package? Many of the most
dramatic recent failures are of this nature.

Other value is in the form of security analysis / fuzzing, etc. This is real
work and there should be ways to fund it.

I think the nature of business today is at a fork. Much of it seems to be
scams, organized around creating the illusion of value and capturing as much
of it as possible. The spirit of open source is the opposite, creating huge
value and being quite inefficient at capturing it. I can see both strands
prevailing. If the former, it
-written? Read some of it. Does it look like the authors have 
 been careful, conscientious, and consistent? Does it attend like code you ’d desire 
 to debug? You may need to. 

 This, 10,000x. I've repeated a exchangeable mantra many, many time, and it's one 
 of the most important rationality I reject to use proprietary software. You should 
 see no software a black box, and regard the software you chose to use 
 cautiously, because it's your responsibility to keep it in good working order. 

 ~~~ 
 bunderbunder 
 Making it someone else's responsibility to keep it in full working order is 
 the value proposition behind (good) proprietary software: You impart them money, 
 they give you a support contract. 

 For a company with more money than development resource, or even just a 
 company whose development resources can be more profitably focus elsewhere, 
 this can be a quite reasonable trade to make. 

 ~~~ 
 vharuck 
 If a company behind proprietary software goes belly up, there's no documentation. 
 But there are always companies or even freelance devs who can be paid to 
 support open source code. 

 ~~~ 
 IggleSniggle 
 Proprietary _ and closed source _. We do use of open source (but not loose 
 license) proprietary software on my team. 

 ------ 
 raphlinus 
 My personal sense, from watching developments in this quad, is that we are 
 going to have to find some way for accept on an open source dependency to be 
 an economic transaction, with money actually changing hands. With open source, 
 the code itself is free (in both the libre and gratis sense), but there are 
 other place to identify value. One of them is range of detention - is there an 
 actual, somewhat responsible human being behind that package? Many of the about 
 dramatic recent failures are of this nature. 

 Other value is in the form of security analysis / fuzzing, etc. This is real 
 work and there should be ways to fund it. 

 I intend the nature of business today is at a crotch. Much of it seems to be 
 scams, form around creating the delusion of value and capturing equally much 
 of it as possible. The spirit of loose source is the opposite, create huge 
 value and being quite inefficient at capture it. I can see both strand 
 prevailing. If the former, it
-wrihten? Read some of it. Doer it look like jhw authmrs habe
been cxreful, conscientious, and condiwtent? Does it look like codd you’d wajt
to debyg? Yiy may need to.

This, 10,000w. I've vepeacev a similar manjra many, manf times, and it'v unz
of the most important reasons I reftse to isf proprietary foftewre. Gou should
consider no software a bmack boq, and consider thr software you chose to usf
carffully, because it's your respobsibyoity to keep it in good working orser.

~~~
bunderbunder
Making it someond elsz's responsivioitj to keep it in gjod working order is
dhe valie proposition beiind (good) proprietary sofvware: You give them ioney,
they gnve you a support conrrqct.

Fot a cmmpavt wkth mprs monej tian developjent resourxes, or even just a
cpm[qny whose devslopmegt resources can be more profitably focustd elaewhere,
this can be a quute reasonable trade jo make.

~~~
vhawuck
If a company behind proprietary software goes bellb jp, uhcve's vi dupport.
But there are always companies or even rrtelsnce devs who gan be paid to
suppprh pken source codg.

~~~
IggleSujgfle
Proprietary _and closed sourxe_. We makt use of open source (but not opeb
license) proirierary software on mv team.

------
raphliuus
My kersonsl sense, from watching bevelolments in tjis space, ks that we are
gokng tm have to find some way fow taking in au open suurcg depenqency to bf
an egmnomic transaction, with mmney actuaply changing hands. With open soncce,
the code ijsenf ps free (iu both the libre anq gratis sense), but thzre ard
other plabes to idxntify value. One of them hd chain of cnstody - if thwre qn
actuau, somewhat resppnsible hlmcn being vehind that packagc? Mani kf the most
dramcuic recent failurex afe jf tiis nwdure.

Other vanue ks km the form of segurkty snalysis / fuzzing, etw. Thjs is real
work and tmere shouod be wars to fund it.

O think the nature of bnsinesr todsy ys at a fork. Much of it seems fo be
scamd, ovganized arougd cveatyng the ilkusion of value and capturing as much
of it as possible. Thw spirit of open soorct is the oppoxite, sreating vuge
value and being wuite inefficient at capturing it. I cah see toth dtrands
prevailing. If the former, it
-written? Read some of it. Does it the have been conscientious, and consistent? you’d to debug? You need to. This, I've repeated a similar mantra many, times, and it's one of the most important reasons I refuse to use software. You should consider no software a black box, and consider the software chose use because your responsibility to keep it in good working order. ~~~ bunderbunder Making it someone else's responsibility keep it in good working order is the proposition behind (good) proprietary You give them money, they you support contract. a with money than development or even just a company whose development resources can be more profitably focused elsewhere, this can be quite reasonable make. ~~~ If company proprietary software goes there's no support. But there are even freelance devs who can be paid to open source ~~~ IggleSniggle Proprietary _and closed source_. make use of open source (but not open proprietary software on my team. ------ raphlinus My personal sense, from watching developments in this that we are going have to find way taking an source dependency be an economic transaction, with money actually changing hands. With open the code itself is free (in both the libre and but are other places identify value. One of is of custody - is actual, responsible that Many the most dramatic recent are of this nature. Other is in the form etc. This is real work and there should ways to fund it. I think the of business today is at a fork. Much of it seems to scams, organized the illusion of value and capturing as much it as possible. The of open source is the opposite, creating huge value being inefficient at it. I can both strands prevailing. the former, it
-written? Read some of it. Does it Look like thE authOrs HavE
bEen cArefUl, conscientiouS, And cOnsistent? Does it look likE code YoU’D wanT
To Debug? you may nEEd TO.

thiS, 10,000x. i'vE rePeATeD a simIlaR mantra Many, many tiMes, AnD it's one
of the MOsT important ReaSons I refuse tO usE proprIeTarY SoftwAre. you shOuld
coNSider nO software A bLAck box, ANd consiDER tHe soFtware you chose to uSE
cARefully, because It's youR rESpONSibIliTy to keep it In Good wORking orDEr.

~~~
BUNDerBUnder
Making it Someone else'S ResPonsibIlIty TO keep iT in goOd WOrkIng order is
tHe vaLue proposItion bEHind (gooD) ProprieTary soFtwAre: you gIVe ThEm mOnEY,
thEY gIve YOu a Support cOnTrAct.

FoR a coMPANY witH moRe moNey thAn development ResOurcES, or Even jUst a
cOmpaNy Whose DeveloPment ReSources can be morE proFitably foCusEd ElsEwHere,
tHIs can bE a qUitE reasonAble traDE to MaKE.

~~~
VHaRuck
If a company behiNd PROpRietary sOftwarE GoEs BElly up, thErE's nO supPORt.
But TherE ArE always cOmpaniES oR eVen freeLaNce devS wHo cAn bE paid TO
supPort opEn source Code.

~~~
IGGleSniggle
PropRIetary _and closED sOURcE_. we maKe uSe of open souRce (bUT not Open
LIcEnsE) ProprIetarY sOFtWAre on my team.

------
raphlinuS
MY persoNal seNse, from watchiNg developmENTS in this sPace, IS tHAt we are
going to Have tO find some wAY for takiNg on aN open souRce dependENCy to be
an EcoNomIc tRanSACtIon, with money aCTUallY cHanging HanDs. With oPen SouRce,
The CoDe itself iS free (in bOtH tHe LiBre And grATis sense), BuT thErE arE
otheR Places To ideNtifY vAlUE. OnE of them IS cHAIn of CuStOdy - iS thErE an
acTual, SOmeWhat resPonsible hUmaN BeinG bEhInd that Package? Many of ThE most
dramaTiC reCent faILUres are oF this nature.

Other value is IN the forM of SecurIty aNalysis / fuZziNg, etc. THis IS real
wOrk and There ShOulD BE ways TO FuNd iT.

I Think the naTURe oF busiNeSs toDay is at A fork. Much of it seems TO be
Scams, organizeD arOund CREaTinG ThE IllUsIOn oF VAlue and capturinG as much
of iT aS PoSsible. The sPIriT oF open soUrce is tHe oppOSite, creAting huge
Value and bEiNg quITE inEfficient aT capturiNg it. I can sEE both STrAnds
pRevAiling. if The FormeR, it
-written? Read some of it.  Does it l ook l ike  th eauth orshave
been care f ul,conscientious, and con siste nt ?  Doe s  i t loo k likec od e you ’d  w ant 
t o  d ebug?  Yo u may n eed to.

T his ,10,000x. I'v e  r epeated asim ilar mantraman y, man ytim e s, an d i t's o ne
oft he mos t importa nt reason s  I refu s e  t o us e proprietary sof t wa r e. You shouldconsid er no s oft war e a blackbo x, an d  consid e rt h e  so f tware you cho se to use
c a ref ully,be cau s e it's  your  r e spo nsibility t o ke ep it ingood w o rking o r der.

~ ~~
bun der bun derM ak in g i ts ome o ne  el s e's  respons ib il ity t o ke e p i t in  go od w orkin g order is
th e v alue pro posit ion b ehin d(good ) prop rieta ry  software: Yougive  them mon ey, 
t hey  g ive y o u a su ppo rtcontrac t.

For a c om p a n ywith more money th an d ev elopment  resou r ce s, or evenju sta
co m p any w hose de velopmen t reso u rc es  can be  m ore pr of ita bly  focu s ed e lsewhe re,
this  canb e a quite reas o nable trade t o  m a k e. 
~~~ 
vh aruck
If acomp a ny b ehin d  p rop r ietar y sof tw a re goes belly up, ther e' s no s uppor t.
But thereare always c o mpaniesor e v en freelance devs  whocan be pai d  to
supp ort o pen sour ce code.~ ~~
Iggle Sni ggl e
P rop r i et ary _and clos e d  sou rc e_. Wemak e use o f o pen  so urc e(but notopen
lic en se )pr opr ietar y  softwar eonmy  te am.
- -----raphl inus 
M yp ers onal se n se , from  w at chin g d ev elopm ents inthis sp ace, is t hat we a re 
g oing to  have to find  s ome way fo rtak ing on a n open s ource dependency to bea n econo mic  tran sact ion, with  mo ney ac tua l ly cha nginghands .Wit h opens o ur ce, 
t he code it s e lfis fr ee  (in  both t he libre and grati s  se nse), but the reareo t he r p l ac e s t oi den t i fy value. One o f them isch a in  of custod y  -is  therean
actu al, s o mewhatresponsib le humanbe ingb e hin d that pac kage? Ma ny of the mostd ra matic  re cent f ai lur es ar e of t h isnatur e.

Ot he r valu e isin  the for m of security analysis/ fuzz ing,etc . This is  re a l
w ork and t here  should be  wa ysto fu ndi t.

I  thi n kthe natur e of businesst od ayi s  a t a fork. M u c h  of  it s eem s  to be 
sca ms, organized aro u nd creating th e il l u sio n o f  val ue  and capturing  as  m u c h
of itas  possible.The spir it of op en sou rce is  the op p o si t e, cre atin g h uge
value  an db eing qu it ei neffic ient  a t capt uringi t. I c an see both stra nds
p r e vaili n g.If th eformer, it
-written? Read_some of_it. Does it look_like the_authors_have
been careful,_conscientious,_and consistent? Does_it look like_code you’d want
to debug?_You may need_to.

This,_10,000x. I've repeated a similar mantra many, many times, and it's one
of the most_important_reasons I_refuse_to_use proprietary software. You should
consider_no software a black box,_and consider_the software you chose to use
carefully, because it's_your_responsibility to keep_it in good working order.

~~~
bunderbunder
Making it someone else's responsibility_to keep it in good working_order is
the value_proposition_behind_(good) proprietary software: You_give them money,
they give you a_support contract.

For a company with more_money than development resources, or even just_a
company whose development resources can be_more profitably focused elsewhere,
this can_be a_quite reasonable trade to make.

~~~
vharuck
If_a company behind_proprietary software_goes belly up,_there's no support.
But there are always_companies or even_freelance devs who can be paid_to
support_open source code.

~~~
IggleSniggle
Proprietary__and_closed_source_. We_make use of_open_source (but_not_open
license) proprietary software on my team.

------
raphlinus
My_personal_sense, from watching developments in this space,_is that we are
going_to_have to find some_way for taking on an_open source dependency to be
an economic_transaction, with_money actually_changing hands. With open source,
the code itself is free (in both_the libre and gratis sense), but_there are
other places to_identify value._One_of them is_chain_of custody_- is there an
actual, somewhat responsible human_being behind_that package? Many of the most
dramatic_recent failures are of_this_nature.

Other value is in the form_of security analysis / fuzzing, etc._This is real
work and there_should_be_ways to fund it.

I think_the nature of business today is_at a fork._Much of it seems to be
scams, organized_around_creating the illusion of value and_capturing_as much
of it as possible. The_spirit_of_open source is the opposite,_creating huge
value and being quite inefficient_at capturing it. I can see both strands
prevailing. If_the former, it