On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:13 am, Brendan Abel wrote: > In the article he makes a good point that if > you're that worried about always using open-source, then you shouldn't be > using gmail, or twitter, or even automobiles,
It's not a good point. I don't use gmail, or twitter, and if I could find a car that didn't rely on closed-source code, I would use it. Just because choice is limited and its hard or impossible to get open-source engines doesn't mean that closed-source engines are a good idea. > since they all use software > that is closed-source. At some point, paying for software just makes > sense. No, that doesn't follow. The opposite of "open source" is not "paying for software". You can pay somebody to maintain your open source repo just as easily as you can pay somebody else to maintain their own closed source repo. I watched the discussion on Python-Dev that decided to move to github, and there were completely viable open source hg alternatives. Although nobody was quite crass enough to come right out and say it, the alternatives were all dismissed because they weren't Github, because "everyone uses github". -- Steven “Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
