This thread is permanently archived
Closed-Source Softwares you consider ok?
| Nero Burning ROM
| Firmware that is indistinguishable from circuitry and not meant to be replaced or upgraded.
| >>302702
A classical example for bloatware.
>>302636
Well I like some computergames, which are unfortunately usually proprietary, but I also laid my hands on some of them with a hex-editor to do modifications. At least a lot of todays popular games look back on modding closed source titles.
But 10 years after slowly abandon on windows, I lost my interest in closed source stuff.
Oh, I have to confess using proprietary VMware for virtualization, but I will switch to qemu/kvm.
| >>302819
Lol. Read again:
>>302817
What do you think could have been the consequence of >I lost my interest in closed source stuff
? Installing OSX or what? There almost is no choice but using GNU/linux to have a free OS (as in freedom). Except for writing your own, lol.
| IDA
| UEFI
| Adobe Creative Shit. This is the stuff I can't live without and what binds me to bloody windows.
| >>305818
Try libreoffice, latex, gimp, krita, darktable, inkscape and kdenlive instead. No need to subsctibe adobe Bloatware with its ultra-annoying proprietary formats and standards. There are even whole distributions for creative work like ubuntu studio or kxstudio.
I would love to help liberating people like you!
| I love how these linuxfags always hide the fact these free softwares 99.99% of the time are inferior to proprietary ones.
| >>306174
Free Software doesn't hide anything from you. It also entirely depends on what you mean by inferior. For me proprietary software objectively makes my life harder simply by being proprietary (licenses, being locked down, DRM, and lack of freedom). Also the server space. I've yet to find someone who doesn't prefer the comfy *nix environments for hosting any network service.
But feel free to elaborate, name something you don't like about GNU/Linux software.
| >>306174
I love how these proprietary-shitbrains don'th understand or value things like modularity, simplicity and freedom.
You know, I would give a shit if people prefer continue buying latest hardware to run overpriced bloatware with bad accesibility and shitty standardization which even creates incompatibilities in the same product series. The Problem is, that they exclude free alternatives, I prefer to work with, by design.
| >>306187 i hate how I have to use djmount any time I want UPnP support for Amarok, because Amarok's is broken on KDE neon I guess.
I'm only using Amarok because I'm looking for a linux solution for Musicbee.
Also I use form fillable PDFs for work, which free PDF readers don't support, by design.
| >>306174
Indeed proprietary software is better by default because it's done by a company doing it for money, and not by "petya the local foss programmer that do it because he's boring", but it's foss, you can change it, reverse engineer it, customize it, oh sorry, it's too difficult for you to understand it.
| The only exception about closed source software is games. Like really, who will do such a big project for free? It's nit only programming, it's modeling, music, arts... And it's absolutely haram to give the source code because then there will be a lot of cheats. So foss games are a bad idea.
| >>306623
Except there's billion dollar companies such as Red Hat whose central business is supporting OSS. They acquired dozens of proprietary companies and freed their products.
But yet again it depends on what you mean by "better". If you mean that non-free software is best for squeezing the very last penny out of your locked in customers, then it very well may be so. Proprietary software does deny most freedoms after all.
| >>306648 by "better" he means "more features", "more performance", "more things you can do on it". The best example is photoshop, that has so many features that it has no concurents. Many designers simply can't work without theses features and photoshop. Monopoly strikes again
| >>306626
Actually 0ad is a great game.
Also a lot of todays popular titles like dota/lol or counterstrike were once mods, originally developed by a community for free by hacking closed source.
I think the source of games should at least opened after a while.
But I also think open-source gaming could work. I'm willed to pay for artwork, distribution, service and support but not for whacky marketing strategirs like monopolization, customer bounding, virtual malls and subscriptions.
| >>306665
More features and more performance are two contradictory goals.
Most "designers" totally could use Foss alternatives for their work, if it would be learned at schools and universities.
When I started to study I was seriously told that I need a macbook. Well, I succfully made it without, even thought the professors (especially the younger generation) where always annoying me with their "mandatory" proprietary shit.
| >>306684 you should read one more time what u said. You're a dev, you can do something foss for free, but not a good game, because for doing "battlefield 5 not retarded accurate and foss" like game, it takes an enormous amount of work and money. As a consequence no one do it for free, and it makes sense. Open source mostly is problematic because of cheats and hacks. Open source would let you manipulate the game, a thing that especially in online games can't happen.
| >>306782
I'd like to propose an alternative way to develop games to the conventional proprietary way. Develop your game like you normally would and sell them, but with every copy you also ship the source code under the GPL-3.0 license. The assets itself could be proprietary, or maybe even CC-BY-NonCommercial. That way you give your customers alot of freedom with their computing, while also giving them an incentive to buy the game. After all a game's not playable without the assets.
| >>306782
When it comes to cheats and hacking it's really about how much freedom you want to take away from your users/players/customers. A Free/Libre game naturally makes it easy to be a hacker, and that's good. It teaches you valuable things about programming. A proprietary game however is not automatically unhackable. The compiled state of the binaries merely complicate a hackers craft.
| >>306782
>Open source mostly is problematic because of cheats and hacks. Open source would let you manipulate the game, a thing that especially in online games can't happen.
It's strange that the most secure applications actually are open source. I think you don't understand that a software, that runs on a server does not have to be proprietary to be secure. It's more the opposite case, since all security aspects of proprietary software are only accessible to a small group of devs.
| >>306793
>I'd like to propose an alternative way to develop games to the conventional proprietary way.
This guy got it.
FOSS game development could have a great potential, as it would be more modularized, with reusable components and platform independent.
Also a lot of new modern blockbuster game titles by big companies were really disappointing, as they were mostly just adaptations of previous titles or even mods that *suprise* were developed free by a community.
This thread is permanently archived
| You know you like it, but can't admit it.