Re: [libreplanet-discuss] 7 Reasons to Avoid Open Source?

[Michael Pagan]

On 2 Dec 2017 at 23:45, Mary-Anne Wolf <mgwmgw@comcast.net> wrote:
> This
> https://www.designnews.com/content/7-reasons-open-source-software-should-be-avoided/100858102757881
> says, "As much potential as open source software can provide, there
> are several reasons why embedded software developers should avoid it
> like the plague."
>
>
> You would not be surprised that the reasons generally do not impress
> me.  Somebody who can express it better than I do needs to
> respond. <SNIP>

_Let us dissect his arguments, point-by-point, shall we?_

* Reason #1 – Lacks a traceable software development life cycle

Incorrect – free software can actually /provide/ a traceable software
development life cycle.  Anyone who uses a [version control system][0]
(VCS) knows this to be extremely common among free software projects.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version_control_system

Direct quote about a VCS from Wikipedia:

    Revision control allows for the ability to revert a document to a
    previous revision, which is critical for allowing editors to *track*
    each other's edits, correct mistakes, and defend against vandalism
    and spamming.

The root word of *traceable* is trace, which is a synonym of the word
*track*, hence VCS allows editors to trace/track each other's edits.
Yes, free software does not *have* to be version controlled; however, it
is the norm, and it is wrong to assume that ALL free programs are
developed without any form of version control.  _Reason #1_ is a lie!

* Reason #2 – Designed for functionality[,] not robustness

This is a half-truth (lie) based on assumptions, and the author does not
provide any real-world examples––although he likes to say "real-world"––
that prove his point.  Phrases like /is often written functionally/;
/generally not robust/; /expects that a wrench will never be thrown/;
/rarely the case/; and /can find/ (not *will* find), only prove that
this author is assuming that free software is not designed for
robustness.  There are thousands of free software projects online, and
he assumes that they are not robust; otherwise, he should have said that
*some* free software is not robust–– this would've been more believable.

The last sentence of his second reason (direct quote) is true for all
software projects, and not just free software.  He does not say this, of
course, and by omitting this truth–– he lies:

    Developers will find themselves having to dig through unknown
    terrain trying to figure out how best to improve or handle errors
    that weren’t expected by the original developers.

_Reason #2_ is a lie!

* Reason #3 – Accidentally exposing confidential intellectual property

The term [intellectual property][1] is a misleading term designed to
cause confusion.  Anyone who uses a free software license uses it for
the explicit reason to publish/expose their software/information.  Free
Software licenses require users to share software/knowledge, hence it is
not accidental–– it is *deliberate* (free licenses make this obvious).

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

Richard Stallman has written extensively about this [confusing term][1],
and you can read those essays via this link (4 essays as of now):

https://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/estseek.cgi?phrase=intellectual+property+%21+diff&attr0=%40title+ISTRINC+Intellectual+Property&attr1=&attr2=&order=&perpage=10&clip=9&navi=1

_Reason #3_ is a lie!

* Reason #4 – Lacking automated or manual tests

Notice how he did not say "Completely Lacking."  Notice also how he has
looked at Python projects, but has not mentioned whether he has looked
at other types of projects.  Once again, no specific examples of which
tests the free software community is actually missing.  No references to
mailing lists or forums where he has asked for such tests have been
identified.  How can anyone agree with such a statement without proof?

More assumptions and no evidence... _Reason #4_ is *evidently* a lie!

* Reason #5 – Poor documentation or documentation that is lacking
  completely (he said "completely"–– I WILL debunk this)

Has this author ever heard of a [man page][2] (not related to men, `man'
is short for *manual*) before?  How about the [info reader][3]?

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_page
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info_%28Unix%29

One of the *main* reasons to use free software is *because* it is so
well documented.  I have yet to find any software in my GNU/Linux distro
that does not come with documentation.  Richard Stallman once complained
about [a lack of free documentation for free software][4]... this was
about _[10 years ago][5]_ and is no longer true!

[4]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
[5]: 
https://web.archive.org/web/19990224050619/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html

Now for my strongest point!  Even if free software has no manuals which
document it's use, and not even a command-line "help" option, I dare
say: You can *still* learn how the software works, even without these!

Some of you must be wondering how?  _Here's how:_ It's free software,
and you can access the source code!  Has Jacob Beningo never heard of a
[source code comment][6] before?  Yes, it is possible to learn how
software works––with or without source code comments–– and you can even
generate documentation from said comments.  This type of documentation,
by the way, can ONLY be accessed from free software!

[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comment_(computer_programming)

Not only is this the norm for free software, but for all GNU
programs... it is [standard][7].

[7]: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Comments.html

_Reason #5_ is a lie!

* Reason #6 – Real-time support is lacking

No proof is provided here.  No mailing lists have been identified where
he has *personally* asked for support and received none.  No references
are made to any forums, IRC channels, or even wiki pages, where he has
posted or published a request for support.  Every (and I mean *every*)
time I have asked for support for free software that is still actively
maintained (some free software is [abandonware][8]), I always got it.

[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

Anyone ever heard of the phrase: "The proof of the pudding is in the
eating!"  A similar phrase can be said: "The proof of a lack of support
is in the requesting of said support."  No requests; no support–– common
sense, folks.  He has omitted requests for support that he "supposedly"
made, hence _Reason #6_ is also a lie (omission of requests)!

* Reason #7 – Integration is never as easy as it seems

Perhaps the author (with his constant assumptions) once again assumed
that integration would be easy, but did not do his research about the
process ahead of time.  With a [catalog][9] of so many free software
programs to solve any given task, I usually do my research ahead of time
to determine which free program would be best to use to solve my
problems.  Perhaps the author went with the first free program he found
and just used it without research, and without looking at other free
alternatives.

[9]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page

Once again, we won't know for sure until he explains.  But can we expect
an assumer who commonly omits information to tell the truth?

In case it isn't obvious by now... _Reason #7_ is a lie!

* (Jacob Beningo's) Conclusions

    By no means am I against open source software. It’s been extremely
    helpful and beneficial in certain circumstances. It’s important
    though not to just use software because it’s free and open
    source. Developers need to recognize their requirements, needs, and
    the robustness level that they require for their product and
    appropriately develop or source software that meets those needs
    rather than blindly selecting software because it’s “free.”

** My conclusions

His (Jacob Beningo's) conclusions reveal him as a hypocrite.  He says he
is not /against open source software/ or free as in freedom (faif)
software, but then states: "It’s important though not to just use
software because it’s free."  I––for one–– ONLY use software *when* it
is free.  He also states that "Developers need to recognize
<SNIP>... rather than blindly selecting software because it’s “free.”
Apparently, I––as well as millions of others–– am/are blind and do NOT
recognize.

What is this guy all about, anyway?  Let's take a direct excerpt from
his article that describes him:

    Jacob Beningo is an embedded software consultant who currently works
    with clients in more than a dozen countries to dramatically
    transform their businesses by improving product quality, cost and
    time to market.

This man is focused on improving product quality, cost and time to
market–– he did not list *freedom* as a priority.  This description of
himself already tells us where his loyalty lies–– NOT with the
community, but rather for businesses (proprietary–– very scary).

Are you blind for choosing [software freedom][7]?  Does anyone agree or
disagree with his nonsense?  I certainly do NOT agree!

[7]: https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech2.html


Truthfully
-- 
Michael Pagan (pegzmasta)
GPG Key ID: B942 AD12 82B1 6D14 27A0  86AE 119E 451E 71B4 6D72

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature