Are there any people who are actually pro-proprietary software with actual philosophical ideas and arguments etc. who aren't just "(((muh evil corporate executives))) who are all about the greed"? All we ever hear about is the free side of the coin which argues against properietary software. What are the counter-arguments?
Pro-proprietary
Josiah Brooks
Other urls found in this thread:
vice.com
twitter.com
Jayden Perez
I'm not necessarily pro proprietary but I am pro DRM and proprietary comes along as a result.
I need to ensure I get paid for my software since it is mu main source of income, of which I invested my own money to support myself while developing and for tools, and if it was opened sourced I would have to rely on donations which would put me in the poorhouse not to mention I would not recover my initial investment.
Cooper Sanchez
You sort of take for granted companies would be able to deliver whatever their product or service is just as well with free software. I'm not sure that's the case. If a software bug ruins a chemical process or outcome of a clinical trial, the company can sue AspenTech or SAS. That's peace of mind for a lot of managers, and it helps that these software packages are taught with University curriculum. Inertia is a real thing to consider, not everyone is like the people on Jow Forums in the sense that it doesn't take you very long to learn new software.
Robert Mitchell
it's simple, humans are not floating bubbles of cosmic rays they are animals and are governed by instincts.
any entrepreneurship that ignores basic human psychology is doomed to fail at one time or another.
long story short, centralized, even dictatorial creative lead by enlightened dictator will produce better, more consistent result than liberal everyone are equal shitocracy.
not all companies are enlightened dictatorships, especially at this day and age, and there are some enlightened dictators in open software (linus?) but they will crumble over time due to various untalented coralinas polluting the ecosystem.
Connor Richardson
DRM is a meme. Your argument is for why software should be proprietary, not why you should infest it with DRM.
Asher Cook
The system doesn't even matter. It's all in the genes.
Blake Turner
You don't need to mistreat users to make a living.
Ayden Hernandez
Stallman hasn't written code in years and makes a living as a professional speech-giver. People who write code for a living need to get paid. Either you charge the customer honestly or you have to sell the customer's ass to other companies if you want to make a living.
That said, I'm not totally or even half pro-proprietary... I'm just trying to make some arguments for it.
Levi Miller
There are some benefits to having a locked-down software product and indeed an entire ecosystem of such that makes things "just werk" for the people who will use them.
Of course there are the string of negative effects of this but if apple and its rabid customer base is anything to go by, it would seem that the masses in large part don't really give a fuck.
There are also some things that could be said about one entity (individual or corporate) having complete control over their product can be far more beneficial in general than having the masses create forks of the same product.
Competition is great but there is a point where having too many items on the menu becomes more of a burden not only to the user trying to select a piece of software for any given purpose but resources wasted on hundreds of different offerings all being great at one feature but shit at others and one unified project with those resources working towards one project could produce multiple great features.
Consider what happens within the space of free software now, particularly with GNU/Linux.
All the different flavor of distros all promising slightly different things while also trying to all exist in the same space and use cases. Sure, some do bubble to the top but then consider what is basically an existential crisis for the GNU/Linux user when it comes to choosing their distro. Support sometimes having to be tailored to a distro's peculiar quirks as not even things as basic as the file system and where things go is truly standard across distros.
You don't get that with Windows OS or Mac OS.
Nathaniel Morales
I am. Not pro-proprietary per se, but pro- the best tool for my job.
For me freedom means the software allows me to do the most, with my skills, while using it. As a photographer, a software with great masking, layer blending, and clone stamping options gives me great freedom.
If I try to use "similar" open source software with no such options but the ability to code them myself, is not more "free" because that choice is theoretical and not practical; I could never code a bunch of sophisticated photo manipulation tools all by myself. In that regards the "proprietary" software is more free, as it allows *me* to do the most.
If I were a developer, my job being altering and building upon codebases, an open source software would be freer.
As a user, freedom is the freedom to do the most and get the best results with the software at hand.
This does not necessitate the software to be free, and in practice the opposite is often true.