According to Steve Jobs, this is why open source projects fail

"Fail" is not really correct. An argument could be made that they lag behind proprietary, for-profit software. A lot of things end up being half-assed, "we'll write it better later" type of deal and it never happens until it reaches a breaking point.

And not all of those are true about open source software. The BSDs are highly centralized with their development. OSX even uses a BSD kernel.

OS X does not use a BSD kernel. It uses a BSD userland, for compatibility purposes.

>- A coherent vision requires centralized design
There is still a lead dev/owner of the project and a centralized place to plan things
>- High-level languages need more design than low-level languages
No idea what that has anything to do with open source projects
>- You need multidisciplinary teams to unify disparate fields
All devs are potentially your team
>- Hard cases and boring stuff need to get done too
And this does get done
>- Crowd-sourced decisions can be bad for you
As much as corporate decisions
>- Our developers work for you, not just themselves
Not sure who is meant by "you"
>- Unified computation requires unified design
Freedesktop and shit exists
>- Unified representation requires unified design
There is an entity that owns the rights to the project and can therefore do with the name what he wants
>- Open source doesn’t bring major tech innovation to market
Crypto has a market cap of 5 billion (don't quote me on that
>- Paid software offers an open quid pro quo
Not sure what position this is written from. Also the same thing with the "you" from above. If he means users, then it just free and if he means producers then just sell your software. Open source and paid aren't exclusive
>- It takes steady income to sustain long-term R&D
Subscription based software has steady income, not just paid software. Other than that most donations to open source projects are monthly
>- Bad design is expensive
So only paid software can afford it??

It's not true at all. Some one starts a project on github, or, gita, or whatever software repository and people opt in and out as they see fit. Nothing you said makes anysense to anyone who actually understands how to code and how projects are handled outside the neo-liberal corporate fuckery that is Apple and Microsoft. People audit the code, fix bugs, and push updates to be approved. There is nothing taped together with incoherent sticks and glue"
That's not how technology works. Either something works or it doesn't and it can be explained in a relatively simple fashion. That's all that matters. This is Script Kitty, windows/apple fag copium.

>Muh CLI

GUI interfaces are shit and the people that prefer them are psycopaths.

Attached: 1654098811356.jpg (1280x720, 49.7K)

>There is still a lead dev/owner of the project and a centralized place to plan things
They have no actual power over the project
>No idea what that has anything to do with open source projects
Most open source is written in high level languages
>All devs are potentially your team
No they aren't, most github projects barely get any outside contributions
>And this does get done
No it doesn't, see the sorry state of linux kernel security, or the gnome filepicker thumbnail meme
>As much as corporate decisions
No, corporate decisions might be bad for the user but are usually good for the corporation. Crowd sourced decisions can just be bad for everyone
>Not sure who is meant by "you"
The paying customer, that thing open source doesn't have
>Freedesktop and shit exists
Not unified, it's a jumble of random people working on random optional things
>There is an entity that owns the rights to the project and can therefore do with the name what he wants
The name is the least important part of the design
>Crypto has a market cap of 5 billion
Ponzi schemes aren't innovation
>Not sure what position this is written from.
The customer
>If he means users, then it just free and if he means producers then just sell your software. Open source and paid aren't exclusive
You just said it's free to the users, so no it is exclusive
>Subscription based software has steady income, not just paid software.
Subscription based is not an option for most open source
>Other than that most donations to open source projects are monthly
Begging for donations is not a profitable strategy for most open source
>So only paid software can afford it??
Yes. The worse your design is the more you have to spend on documentation, tutorials, minor bugfixes and tweaks and hacks just to even begin to make it usable

>how projects are handled outside the neo-liberal corporate fuckery that is Apple and Microsoft.
It's ironic how you communists seethe about this all the time. I guess those corporations are the only ones doing evil neo-liberal things like "paying their employees" and "listening to what customers want".

>People audit the code, fix bugs, and push updates to be approved.
NO THEY FUCKING DON'T. You're talking about the top 1% of open source projects that are popular like Python and Linux and Kubernetes and shit. The rest of it gets no audits, bugs sit around for years, you have to beg a developer for updates and hope that he doesn't just call you an asshole and ignore you.

>GUI interfaces are shit and the people that prefer them are psycopaths.
Of course you would be a CLI cargo culter. You're following the script to the letter.

>They have no actual power over the project
They do. If you decide what gets pulled, you decide everything
>No they aren't, most github projects barely get any outside contributions
Then make something the devs want or just hire people
>No it doesn't, see the sorry state of linux kernel security, or the gnome filepicker thumbnail meme
>As much as corporate decisions
Linux is by far still the securest os of the big three.
>No, corporate decisions might be bad for the user but are usually good for the corporation. Crowd sourced decisions can just be bad for everyone
>>Not sure who is meant by "you"
>The paying customer, that thing open source doesn't have
Which one is it.
>No, corporate decisions might be bad for the user but are usually good for the corporation. Crowd sourced decisions can just be bad for everyone
If the decisions are bad for the user they usually hurt the corporation too
>Freedesktop and shit exists
>Not unified, it's a jumble of random people working on random optional things
Yes and they make standards to work with. Also not sure what unified computing is
>The name is the least important part of the design
I assumed representation meant advertising
>Crypto has a market cap of 5 billion
>Ponzi schemes aren't innovation
It was made into a ponzi scheme. The technology is solid and any store of value is just a ponzi scheme when there isn't a natural exchange rate like with US dollars.
>You just said it's free to the users, so no it is exclusive
It isn't. You can always just make executables something you pay for. Source code is open so you can just build from source but most won't.
>Subscription based is not an option for most open source
>Begging for donations is not a profitable strategy for most open source
So is most paid software

can both of you faggots stop quoting each other

>They do. If you decide what gets pulled, you decide everything
Doesn't matter, they can't force good designers to contribute
>Then make something the devs want
They want to get paid
>or just hire people
Costs money which most open source projects don't have
>Linux is by far still the securest os of the big three.
No, not even close
>Which one is it.
The paying customer
>If the decisions are bad for the user they usually hurt the corporation too
No, the corporation can profit from users' misfortune, with open source it's everyone's misfortune and everyone loses
>Yes and they make standards to work with
It's just random people uploading standards that are all completely optional and some of which conflict with each other
>Also not sure what unified computing is
In this context, unified means having a designer go around and fix design issues to make the system as a whole more consistent. This will never happen in open source for many reasons. The main reason is because there isn't really a system as whole, every developer must bend over backwards to support 100 different distributions that each do things slightly differently and refuse to standardize
>I assumed representation meant advertising
Advertising costs money, most open source projects have no advertising budget
>It was made into a ponzi scheme.
It was a ponzi scheme from the very start, this much is clear from the original bitcoin white paper
>The technology is solid
It's not, the tech itself is a giant fraud

>any store of value is just a ponzi scheme
Now you're just spouting idiotic Any Forums memes. USD and Euro are not ponzi schemes, they're a unit of exchange and no one is trying to scam you into "investing" in those like they do with cryptos. My house and my real estate isn't a ponzi scheme, I get value from living in it. Even the gold and silver coins that lolberts love to gamble with so much aren't a ponzi scheme, those are rare metals that have a real use. The "everything is a ponzi scheme" line is /x/ conspiracy tier retardation
>It isn't.
In reality it is, only in the minds of freetards is it not
>You can always just make executables something you pay for.
No one will pay for that, that has never been a profitable strategy in the entire history of open source
>Source code is open so you can just build from source but most won't.
Most don't need to, for your idea to fall apart it just takes one other person to take the source and build it and start giving it away for free
>So is most paid software
That's why apps put ads and microtransactions in everything now, another thing that freetards hate and scream at you if you try to use them because they're opposed to the idea of anyone making any money. Unless it's a ponzi scheme run by crypto scammers, then they love that for some reason

That's an extraordinarily misleading statement. It uses a derivative of the original Mach 2.5 kernel, an early stage in the development of the Mach project by which point Mach had supplanted some basic functionality of BSD Unix (thread scheduling and virtual memory management), but still retained almost the entirety of the BSD kernel to provide all the juicy services.
This is why in github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/tree/main/bsd you can see traditional BSD VFS, the BSD process model, the BSD sockets, BSD event system (kqueue), BSD's NFS implementation, BSD's tty subsystem, security model, etc.