Open source is great and have many use cases. It however are not for the fact of being able to see the source code and fix it anymore. When it comes to serve...
I wouldn’t recommend watching it, but the central argument of this video is to do with software support. They argue that “open source” was more relevant prior to the internet (in servers?) due to the long turnaround time in getting a software vender (in this video IBM) to fix a bug in their software, arguing that by having access to the source code support could instruct the server maintainer what changes to make without them needing to send the tape to IBM to debug (apparently that was something they did, but it seems people in the video comments disagree with this hinting that the youtuber has no actual experience in this area). They argue that due to high speed internet support can release software fixes much quicker so having access to the source code isn’t useful as paying for support contracts is a better option for businesses rather than having people who understand the software they’re running. Apparently this is the only reason why open source is useful. They go on to argue that Linux is only popular on servers because RedHat’s support contracts are cheaper than Microsoft’s, something which I doubt and probably has more to do with the kernel and OS being easy to modify and control allowing it to be extended to a large variety of use cases instead of writing a new system from scratch.
There’s lots of issues with their argument and some have claimed it is trolling but I reckon that would be giving them too much credit. It is likely they are just an idiot fanboying for their favourite companies desperately trying to justify their irrational biases
Exactly, what the video fails to mention is the eventuality that the software ceases to be supported, then what? You’ve built your entire business around this piece of software and it would cost more to migrate to something else than having someone who understands the code or perhaps someone doing it for free on the internet. But with server software especially, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this proprietary stuff ends up going SaaS only ripping off any companies that self host.
If it’s that bad, could you maybe give people a hint as to why we’d want to watch it and what it has to do with linux?
I wouldn’t recommend watching it, but the central argument of this video is to do with software support. They argue that “open source” was more relevant prior to the internet (in servers?) due to the long turnaround time in getting a software vender (in this video IBM) to fix a bug in their software, arguing that by having access to the source code support could instruct the server maintainer what changes to make without them needing to send the tape to IBM to debug (apparently that was something they did, but it seems people in the video comments disagree with this hinting that the youtuber has no actual experience in this area). They argue that due to high speed internet support can release software fixes much quicker so having access to the source code isn’t useful as paying for support contracts is a better option for businesses rather than having people who understand the software they’re running. Apparently this is the only reason why open source is useful. They go on to argue that Linux is only popular on servers because RedHat’s support contracts are cheaper than Microsoft’s, something which I doubt and probably has more to do with the kernel and OS being easy to modify and control allowing it to be extended to a large variety of use cases instead of writing a new system from scratch.
There’s lots of issues with their argument and some have claimed it is trolling but I reckon that would be giving them too much credit. It is likely they are just an idiot fanboying for their favourite companies desperately trying to justify their irrational biases
Uh, you just have to take a look at recent developments with Unity and Adobe to see that closed-source software can be a huge problem?
Exactly, what the video fails to mention is the eventuality that the software ceases to be supported, then what? You’ve built your entire business around this piece of software and it would cost more to migrate to something else than having someone who understands the code or perhaps someone doing it for free on the internet. But with server software especially, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this proprietary stuff ends up going SaaS only ripping off any companies that self host.
So why are you giving him views by prominently linking it? It looks like you’re just bringing the rage bait here.
You can just not watch it. I think it’s their genuine opinion probably not rage bait