Some people like it for security or just that it’s free and less restriction. Or their own specific reason.
At first I was digging the idea of open source games because (specifically Nintendo) is known to be copyright strike trigger happy on Youtube and other places. So it’s a way to get some gameplay footage and not have it get taken down for copyright, while talking about things, or just playing games on your channel, or even just a free open source game knowing you are not pirating any games by playing it.
Then I liked the idea of open source browsers because it’s an opportunity to get away from chrome, firefox(despite being open source itself) internet explorer, edge or opera and onto something entirely new or close enough, with privacy just being an added bonus.
Anyones free to comment of there experience or reasoning of using this kind of apps
Freedom. That’s the main reason and philosophy. Propietary, closed source programs tend to behave in a way that is malicious to the user, the temptation is there and it has happened over and over again.
If I think at the lowest level, there are the hardware, cpu microcode, Intel ME, AMD PSP… which are probably compromised or made for spying, backdoors…
Mass spying is an evil for a free society.
Whenever someone argues that it is to catch criminals, you have to remember that this is equivalent to putting a camera in every house in every room and corner to prevent crime. It is simply not the right way to go.
So, I like open source software because Orwell’s 1984 was a warning and not a guide.
“Open Source” is the marketing term created to promote less restrictive licenses to allow taking “open source” software back to “proprietary” for commercial reasons. But it does also allow developers a freedom to take the source and use it too, if they can get a working version before it disappears behind the curtain.
“Free/Libre OS” GPL etc software is a misnomer as well, because it intends to restrict the software to always stay “free/libre”. But it does provide the four freedoms for users and developers, while also applying restrictions, i.e. the opposite of freedom to do whatever you want.
Knowing this, I prefer to use “Free/Libre OS” software because having source available seems > the restrictions on what may be done with it.
How could this be understood? although it may seem contradictory, is it really bad?
Just as we don’t confuse freedom with freedom to harm others. Can this really be comparable? I guess not tho
Maybe I’ll say “respect of the user” because “it show what it do in your system”.
Morgoth and many other (and me too, in some point of view) see this like a freedom, compared this with proprietary software philosophy, restrictive with the user right, protective with copyright but not with privacy. And this can be assimilate with freedom. As i am, now, familiar with open source, i assimilate this with respect.
Sometimes RMS is very literal and careful to use, or insist on, established definitions of words; however, the choice of “free/libre” was different, or skewed to only one perspective. It was a struggle for support, or marketing. A tactic. Almost propaganda. Who doesn’t like “free”, even if it causes confusion between free like beer, or like a bear in the wild.
Viral OSS, or Always OSS, or Copyleft OSS would be more accurate, but they wanted to emphasize “freedom” because it has a better image, and the others cause concerns.
I dislike proprietary software as much as anyone, but let’s be real about the tradeoffs and words.