Ok didn't open source essentially won and demonstrated being the best way to develop most of the time?

@pasqui023 @Gargron Nothing in that blurb is wrong. It is, after all, why the FOSS community bothered to come up with the Semantic Versioning convention, and a whole ecosystem of tools supporting it.

I think the real issue here is that the blurb, on its own, is somewhat misleading: it implies that there's no support for remediating any incompatibilities that arise (which is, of course, simply not true).

@vertigo @gargron @pasqui023 No, the issue with the blurb is that it implies that this is a problem with free software, rather than a general problem of our systems being so complex that we cannot build them ourselves and need to rely on other people's code.

"build or buy" exists without free software, and choosing how much effort to spend on understanding "bought" (for money or not) code is always a balancing act.

@clacke @pasqui023 @Gargron The real issue with that blurb is that it's too small to get any real context. Clearly, we interpreted it different ways. That's a problem.

@vertigo @gargron @pasqui023 Perhaps. But can we agree that you can strike every "open source" from the blurb and it will remain just as true? That means that phrase is unnecessary and points fingers in the wrong direction.

@clacke @pasqui023 @Gargron Sure, I agree with that.

I guess the reason I didn't take offense to what they wrote is because it's Tech Crunch. They're widely known for horrifically inaccurate and smarmy reporting.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!