As an open source developer I use some tools that are not open source, and which I would not even want to be open source. It doesn’t have to be an ideological battle. It’s just different distribution models with different benefits.
I generally prefer open source over proprietary, all else being equal. But there are some software categories where the best OSS examples are still leagues below the best proprietary examples in design and quality, despite many OSS attempts over many years. In such categories, I'd love it if a seriously competitive OSS example emerged, and I'd probably jump on it and start evangelising it. But until that happens, I have to assume there's something about the proprietary model that just works better to produce high quality software in that particular category.
Forcing yourself to use a bad piece of software on ideological grounds, or worse still, engaging in doublethink (deluding yourself that it's actually a good piece of software and that everyone else is mistaken) does not help the open source movement. It damages it.
>Forcing yourself to use a bad piece of software on ideological grounds, or worse still, engaging in doublethink (deluding yourself that it's actually a good piece of software and that everyone else is mistaken) does not help the open source movement. It damages it.
Exactly this. It reminds me of the worst type of Apple fans, when people try to argue that a piece-of-crap software provides an equal experience to a ridiculously polished piece of proprietary software. Sometimes open-source has better software, but sometimes it doesn't and there's nothing worse than being gaslit by zealots.
