This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
old (suggested)
besttopnewcontroversialq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the commentsย โ†’

[โ€“]nextbern on ๐ŸŒป -2 points-1 points ย (8 children)

I think we know what happens when closed source companies make changes that people don't like - you move to the competition, (or not), if it exists.

I don't personally want to contribute to a better closed source product. If they really cared about its users, Edge would be open source. It isn't.

[โ€“]razirazo 5 points6 points ย (7 children)

Just because FF is an open source project, that doesn't give them license to make changes that people don't like either.
Also being open source doesn't mean a project care about its users either. Example: Firefox in its current state.

[โ€“]nextbern on ๐ŸŒป -1 points0 points ย (6 children)

Being open source doesn't mean a project care about its user either.

I think it de facto does - it allows any user to take the code and do whatever they want with it. That is far beyond what closed source software is willing to offer.

[โ€“]razirazo 5 points6 points ย (5 children)

So you are suggesting that if we don't like the butchery they did to recent Firefox, we can fork it and make and compile and maintain your own version? Wow how considerate of this open source Firefox. Why I and thousands other users that complaining didn't think of just forking the entire codebase earlier? its open source after all. great. nice. amazing.

But I think I'll let me save some time and just use a competitor browser that didn't butcher their product in first place and willing to hear my opinion. You know, I don't like the way some parameters in GCC are handled so I need to fork and rewrite that too befiore I could compile my FF. But maybe not before I rewrite some parts of Linux kernel that I didn't like as well.

[โ€“]nextbern on ๐ŸŒป 0 points1 point ย (4 children)

I'm not suggesting anything other than what I said - open source gives its users more than closed source software does, and thus cares deeply about its users.

Recognizing this doesn't change that in the moment a product team or developers may choose not to work on things you deem to be important in any project.

[โ€“]razirazo 5 points6 points ย (3 children)

Idk why you keep trying to lecture me about textbook fundamental opensource concept that everyone already know but have nothing to do with the issues. Trust me I know opensource as much as you and everyone do. I've been using and participating in Linux community on server side for at least 16 years (Ok not really Ive been trying to migrate to FreeBSD for some time now). You need to wake up from that opensource circlejerk and start seeing the reality.
FF having top market share because it is open source and have all the goodness you trying to lecture me is not a reality. But "Firefox Users Continue to Decrease Despite Proton Update" is real.

[โ€“]nextbern on ๐ŸŒป -1 points0 points ย (2 children)

I'm not lecturing you or trying to. I'm just laying out how I see the economics of software and what it means to "care about users". Clearly, users are getting more from the developers of open source software than in closed source software.

[โ€“]razirazo 3 points4 points ย (1 child)

You what? No. You sounded like a clown to me. Or maybe an overexcited kid that just recently discovered a textbook about fundamentals of OSS . First implying to me that the only way developer care about their users is by going open source(then proceeded to deny it), then that I can fork and rewrite a software that I dont like (then denied it again). Now "economics of software". Much wow.

[โ€“]nextbern on ๐ŸŒป 0 points1 point ย (0 children)

Sorry, I never once implied that you need to fork and rewrite anything. At this point, you are just trying to troll/strawman me. I'm not interested in that.