this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
1709 points (76.4% liked)
Memes
45740 readers
842 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're still stuck in 2002 or something? Most of the web is literally FOSS. Gone are the myths of free software being worse when the whole world literally runs on it.
(not op)
Sure, but in this case, most of the lemmy-clients (FOSS or not) are bad.
I have problems logging into my accounts (seems like some instances want my email as a username and many clients cannot handle this after I switched accounts), some clients don't feature editing or deleting your posts, some clients don't show my saved content, some clients don't allow to see what you posted
Sure, much of this is because they started from scratch and will maybe surpass sync some day; but right now I couldn't find something that isn't worth. (didn't try infinity yet, tho)
it's not necessarily "FOSS is bad"; it's just that the current lemmy-ecosystem is in it's child shoes (I have the feeling this proverb doesn't work in english?)
That said: I use Sync4Lemmy since 5 minutes and this is my first comment; so let's see if/what it will deliver
Never heard that idiom before, (is it German?) Sentiment is clear though, I would probably just say "in its infancy" or something.
Also completely agree with your points. I'm a major supporter of FOSS but at the end of the day, I'm gonna use what actually works - the same as everyone else.
That idiom is intuitive as heck though, I like it
The meaning is perfectly clear. I believe English speakers would say "...is in its infancy" but that's just a common way of saying "early stages" not a proverb per se.
Most FOSS apps are equal to or better than proprietary software when it comes to functionality, but look like they were coded in the stone age.
Most casual users value GUI over everything. And while I personally can overlook shitty user interfaces on apps I use once in a blue moon, for a social media app I'm using daily, that's a no go.
Yeah a lot of open source apps looks ugly but are just better. I have no idea why design is not a priority. Just look at the most popular products anywhere. They all look good.
UX people cannot make their own apps without hiring devs ( requiring money ).
Devs can create Open Source apps but they cannot afford to hire UX guys so the UX sucks.
Larger projects can attract both devs and UX guys but getting to popularity is hard and, even then, coordinating these diverse teams ( eg. dev and UX ) take project management skill and effort. That is yet another skill set that has to volunteer to be paid.
For a proprietary app, you simply hire the people you need. When you start, you need UX either to attract uses or money. So, UX is one of you first roles you spring for if you are proprietary ( depending on the market ).
Counterpoint: most Javascript on the web is obfuscated to all hell. While technically you can see the code that's running, it being obfuscated is definitely not in the spirit of FOSS, and largely the open source components of servers are being used to prop up all the closed-source stuff reaching end users.
Counter counterpoint: Often frontend js code is minified so that it is smaller and more efficient to transfer to the browser. For FOSS projects you should still be able to get access to that code, unminified, from the project git repo. In the same way desktop apps often ship as binary executables but you can still see the code that was compiled to build them if you find the source repo.
It does make things harder to debug for an average user but it makes it faster/more efficient to run for most end users (in the case of the desktop or phone app it makes it possible to run without needing compiler toolchains that mom and pop likely wouldn't be able to grasp).
The key thing isn't that what the end user's computer runs is readable and editable but whether the code used to build that artifact is available easily and what restrictions there are on editing and redistributing that code.
It's not about Javascript. All of the frameworks and front end tools are open source. React, nextjs, tailwind etc. - all are foss projects and run the best UX and UI we know of.
I don't really want to be that guy, but at least in the case of React and NextJS, the companies have a business reason for them being open source.
Meta uses React internally in a lot of projects. Every other company or developer making contributions in their spare time is free labor, and it directly improves Meta's own products.
Vercel has a vested interest in having developers adopt NextJS, as they sell web hosting. It's easier to build a community of developers around an open-source product, and they even help out with contributions, documentation writing, and QA.
Tbh I'm not exactly sure how is that relevant? Be it Jesus guiding me to make TempleOS or incentive to sell some service the outcome is the same foss
My point is more that all these open source tools have been used by many, many, many sites to build a series of black boxes on top, for which there is no source available. I suppose one easy example is the existence of EME in open source browsers, the existence of which being the reason I actually don't run a pre-compiled binary of Firefox, instead building it myself, with EME not built in.
On security concerns FOSS should be the better solution. Its code is readable and auditable by everyone. Closed Source need trust/faith in a company or in just one single person.