There are many reasons to prefer FLOSS or to support it. In fact, I would say that framing the situation as "either - or" is misleading. I support FLOSS and strongly believe it is necessary and good, for many-many reasons, and yet I use proprietary software as well.
Regarding some of the advantages of FLOSS, mentioned in this thread, I would say that some of them are questionable. A couple were mentioned, but mainly long-term support. That proprietary software becomes obsolete. I have to say that I find this argument to be unconvincing.
First of all, I honestly question the frequency with which people need to access their old projects. Sure, I will probably have some difficulty opening some of my FL Studio 3 projects in FL Studio 20 (although, I am sure it will at least attempt to load it). So what? How often does one need opening old project files? Is this even a serious use case?
Technology moves on quickly. In the last couple of decades computing has changed dramatically. There is no real demand for long-term products. I don't care about being compatible with DOS or Windows XP. I just don't, because these things are no longer very relevant. Sure, running some old game is great, it's not always easy, but it's definitely not something that should be a problem that resources are allocated towards.
Second, this "enforced obsolescence" is pretty rare, in my experience. I guess it also depends on the developer's business model, but most proprietary software I own just doesn't have this problem. At the same time, Ubuntu distros definitely force you out. This "moving on" mentality is more a feature of organized development, not just proprietary. Nobody wants to maintain some old version. In fact, it simply becomes physically impossible. I am still on Ubuntu 14.04 on my old laptop. Most software I try to install won't work because of dependency hell. There are no updates anymore. By your logic, I now have to say that FLOSS forces me to upgrade and that this is "enforced obsolescence". And maybe in a trivial sense it is. And that's fine. Technology moves on quickly. You want it to move on.
Which leads me to the point that actually proprietary software can be pretty good at backwards compatibility. While I'm not aware of things on the Mac, Windows is known to be generally backwards compatible to an amazing degree. They have several teams making sure that this is the case.
At the same time, smaller companies are at the mercy of platforms. If Windows or Mac (or Linux) changes in a dramatic way, what am I to do? If I am a plugin, I have no choice, but to break compatibility. Again, this doesn't happen often. And I guess my only choice is - do I force people to pay for it again or not? And there is no general right answer to that.
And backwards compatibility might not be true for FLOSS at all. I mean, if I want to install a very old version of some program, I might need to install a whole operating system, to take care of the dependencies, and there is absolutely no guarantee it will even run on a modern laptop.
I think there is a difference between "but in theory this could be done" and "it is actually being done". A lot of FLOSS advantages are very theoretical, while in practice a lot of those things are not happening, for various complicated reasons. And a lot of proprietary vices are also theoretical and in practice are not happening, for various complicated reasons.
In general, I would reiterate that in many cases there is no need to pit one against the other. Stallman's take on it doesn't have to be the only one. FLOSS is inevitable, it is also necessary and a public good that helps reduce wealth inequality. It is not the opposite of proprietary, it's just a very different model of software development the advantages of which cannot be trivially compared to proprietary.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
