Critique of Open Source: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
**This is good in terms of open standards bodies | **This is good in terms of open standards bodies | ||
**This may not be good in how the open standards body is created, its overhead, etc. it must be fully open access, not a proprietary consortiumm. | **This may not be good in how the open standards body is created, its overhead, etc. it must be fully open access, not a proprietary consortiumm. | ||
*In general, the courageous approach is ([[Brene Brown]] style) vulnerability, which recognizes that there is an elephant in the room - the system that is already in place to kill, steal, and plunder. Only solution is personal responsibility to not participate, which is currently impossible but must be worked on. | |||
Revision as of 22:17, 27 October 2024
- proliferation of potentially dangerous capacity [1]
- OSE perspective - this danger fails to address the Compiler Problem
- This is good in terms of open standards bodies
- This may not be good in how the open standards body is created, its overhead, etc. it must be fully open access, not a proprietary consortiumm.
- In general, the courageous approach is (Brene Brown style) vulnerability, which recognizes that there is an elephant in the room - the system that is already in place to kill, steal, and plunder. Only solution is personal responsibility to not participate, which is currently impossible but must be worked on.