Re: Look ma, I'm in the paper :)

[Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Massimo!

I cannot agree that this is "very different approach from the proprietary software". There is no one proprietary software approach. Neither is there any floss software approach.

Many proprietary developers are working closely with their users (Renoise is a good example) and many open source developers refuse to get any input from their users (will not give examples, enough controversy).

Another point is that for the end user it doesn't matter who reviews the code - proprietary developer or a non-proprietary one. I get huge amount of system updates to my Ubuntu. I have no idea what it all does. 4 months ago one of these updates broke my wifi and I had to re-install network manager, along with some of the drivers.

"I do not expect that a software that I use for recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?"

Really depends on your definition of "nasty" and "evil". Some people consider lack of anonymity doing payments as "evil". The are, of course, free to do that, but they should not expect others to agree with them.

In free software narratives there is a lot of black and white talk and constant lack of nuances, like people failing to make a difference between confidentiality and anonymity, or between logging anonymous user data and spying.

For me, for example, not supporting modern devices, requiring installation of special libraries to watch a DVD, providing broken or low quality packages in official repos is evil and nasty.

I agree that certain segments of software, especially things like firmware, drivers, maybe some sensitive portions of operating systems should probably be at least partially open source. But I don't think that making everything "free" and open source is a panacea.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Massimo Barbieri <massimo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Il 31/10/2016 20:17, Louigi Verona ha scritto:
> There is simply no time in the world that anyone can review code for
> even one sophisticated
> piece of software they are using. So those claims of free software
> activists are mostly irrelevant
> for the ordinary user and are no more than sound bites.

Hi folks!
If you do not have enough time, or competence like me, to review source
code of the software you use, there are people that do this boring work
for you in order to assure you that the software you use will do exactly
what you expect. This people are the contributors developers, and we
have at least 71 people who control Ardour[1] for you, and 26 who
control Hydrogen[2] for you. And you can talk with them asking for bugs
correction, new features or more stability, if this is what you are
looking for. A very different approach from the proprietary software.

I do not expect that a software that I use for recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?

I complete agree with yPhil, and that's why I applied the free software
reasons to my music, and I share not only my songs, but even my single
recordings tracks and Ardour project with a CC-BY-SA license.

Please, see:
http://johnoption.org/?page_id=9

Ciao,
Max-B

1. https://github.com/Ardour/ardour
2. https://github.com/hydrogen-music/hydrogen

--
IM: massimo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - OpenPGP Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1


_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

--

Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user