Quoting: Samsaisurvival rate among popular open source projects seems quite low.

Don't you mean high?

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Samsaisurvival rate among popular open source projects seems quite low.

Don't you mean high?

Too many rates, got confused. Survival rate is high among popular projects, abandonment rate is low, resurrection rate is quite decent.

Quoting: SamsaiI've been doing my bachelor's thesis on the topic of FOSS life cycle and survival and while it is true that the majority of open source projects, even popular ones, have only one core developer, survival rate among popular open source projects seems quite high. One study I have used as my source (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8870181) indicates only about 16% abandonment rate and a 41% resurrection rate. Abandonment in open source projects also causes a smaller risk than abandonment among proprietary software (which also happens) because major government entities or businesses have the ability to direct developer resources towards critical components. And, like was previously stated, projects with a single core developer aren't necessarily projects governments etc would make use of. Enterprise-level FOSS solutions tend to also have enterprise-level project management.

Edit: words

Your answer is perfect! It answers a question or an attack the people against FOSS could promote. "One man project is a risk!" - "We have a study that prove it's the opposite" - "yes but if our chosen software is stopped being developed?" -"nothing prevents you to hire developers to revive it for your own use that is the point of FOSS." end of argument.

I'm' sorry I feel I wasn't clear enough. That was the point I was trying to make, knowing your weaknesses or supposed ones. So when confronted to them you can answer with solid facts. And also try to be simple in your explanation plan as if you were talking to a 6 years old.

Quoting: GuestJust because it seems appropriate, Australia's covid tracking app will apparently (only apparently because at the time of writing it hasn't happened yet) have its source code released. If actually done, then it's only because they need the public to have some confidence that it's not being used to spy on everyone and harvest yet more data for political purposes.
I'll try not to get into that conversation, but while there is the security-through-obscurity argument to make (not that I adhere to that personally, the argument shouldn't be ignored either), FOSS also allows for public goodwill and governmental transparency.

That's the model France did choose. But for us its official it will be open source. And apparently we are the only ones at the moment to have chosen that path. It feels good to see and other country use the same path.

Last edited by DerpFox on 27 April 2020 at 3:43 pm UTC

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=Je0NucWKsGg

A bit long but a nice looking primer to the general idea.

Just found this thread, so here's my 2¢. Over the last couple of decades, I've gone from being an Open Source sceptic to an ardent supporter, and in that time it's become clear to me that the strongest argument in its favour is simply this: if someone wants you to run their software, it's only fair for them to be open and honest about what it's actually doing (as opposed to what they say it's supposed to be doing), by revealing the source code.

If you go to pick your car up from the shop, and the mechanic just presents you with a price, and no explanation as to how he came by it, you're going to wonder what he did, if anything at all. You might not know what every item on an itemized bill means, but the tradesman who gives you one is being open with you about his work. If you're sceptical, you can take it to another one who can look it, and the alleged work, over to see if it makes sense.

Same with software. I haven't read every line of the source to everything I'm running on my computer, but the developers have been polite enough to make it available, and that engenders trust: I can be reasonably sure they're not deliberately hiding anything.

This is surely doubly important when it comes to the government. Not only should the people running the software be able to find out exactly what it's doing, but so should the people on whose behalf they're running (not to mention buying) it.

Why would anyone, but especially a branch of government, use software on pure blind faith? I find it astonishing that, in this day and age, people in positions of authority aren't demanding to see the source code of the software their organizations are expected to use as a condition of using it. This isn't a crusade of the Open Source righteous; it's just common sense.

Quoting: InstbabyPlease tell me, can someone know what service can be used to localize applications? This is very important for me now.

Please stop necroing threads with totally off-topic messages. Start a new thread if you need help with something.

Quoting: DuncWhy would anyone, but especially a branch of government, use software on pure blind faith? I find it astonishing that, in this day and age, people in positions of authority aren't demanding to see the source code of the software their organizations are expected to use as a condition of using it. This isn't a crusade of the Open Source righteous; it's just common sense.

On the one hand, there is a real logic behind your statement. On the other hand, it goes against the copyright, doesn't it? I think it's mainly to preserve that part that some decisions are not made. As a developer, I wouldn't really agree to show my source code if my software is going to be commercialized. I once had a customer ask me to make a $3000 application for him, which he ended up paying for with a loan at https://fitmymoney.com/3000-loan/ . After that, he asked me for the source code, but I refused because in my opinion it is my work.

Last edited by HearnB on 21 July 2022 at 10:53 am UTC