[Very bad take] Why open source are not that important (servers and IT)

Never seen an opinion more biased than this

This person uses an 8GB mac, and tried to defend Apple in the debate, going as far as to say that Apple hardware is "not that expensive", and within 2 months regrets buying the 8gb mac.

They think Open Source is "overrated", insecure, and not important. They think Linux users are "normies" and fakers, Linux is not a desktop OS, and have explicitly stated "F*** LINUX".

That's a lot of terrible opinions in just 4 months, especially for someone who calls the internet "stupid", and supposedly doesn't have any education.

This is either a troll account, or someone with less than zero credibility considering their opinions and statements.

This person uses an 8GB mac, and tried to defend Apple in the debate

This is more than enough for me to form an opinion about this guy.
Something about that channel feels "off", don't know what it is. Maybe all the rants and abundance of negative opinions?? Perhaps it's the culture difference in how he communicates on camera?

The only positive videos I've seen are him moving to macOS, the dell laptop one, and i guess the keyboard one, the other ones seem to be mostly opinion pieces & rants. There are other channels that do a better, more balanced job of this I think
- Rage bait and contrarianism are unfortunately pretty effective business models on YouTube. The less exposure we give people like that, the better.
Yeah I think he must be a troll or a total fuckwit. Just checked out his video about the 8gb mac mini letting him down and it seems to just be a joke. The comments on his videos seem legit and in support of what he's saying, I have seen videos from Apple fanboys, and I suppose Windows fanboys must be a thing. I don't think he's smart enough to call him a troll so I'll stick with fuckwit.

Summary

According to the video, open source software is not necessarily as important for servers and IT in the modern world as it was in the past. This is because software updates are now delivered electronically over the internet, making it less important to have access to the source code. Additionally, companies typically pay for service agreements with software vendors, which means that the vendor will fix bugs and update the software for them. Even if a company has access to the source code, they may not have the expertise to fix the software themselves.

I believe this is a perfect example of what I believe is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. In the same way that I'm glad amateurs are given a platform, I rue the fact that amateurs are given a platform as a little bit of research would've prevented them making themselves look so stupid. "Servers don't need open source" with 97% of the top 100 servers running Linux looks like an odd position to take. Maybe they're trolling.

Making connections between open-source and updates is either really stupid or really sus. Open-source isn't about that at all. I'd say that person is 99% an imp or a troll. In any case just vote him out.

I just want to clarify as OP, I didn't post this because I support it, I posted it because it's stupid and just a taste of the very poor takes out there

If it's that bad, could you maybe give people a hint as to why we'd want to watch it and what it has to do with linux?
- I wouldn't recommend watching it, but the central argument of this video is to do with software support. They argue that "open source" was more relevant prior to the internet (in servers?) due to the long turnaround time in getting a software vender (in this video IBM) to fix a bug in their software, arguing that by having access to the source code support could instruct the server maintainer what changes to make without them needing to send the tape to IBM to debug (apparently that was something they did, but it seems people in the video comments disagree with this hinting that the youtuber has no actual experience in this area). They argue that due to high speed internet support can release software fixes much quicker so having access to the source code isn't useful as paying for support contracts is a better option for businesses rather than having people who understand the software they're running. Apparently this is the only reason why open source is useful. They go on to argue that Linux is only popular on servers because RedHat's support contracts are cheaper than Microsoft's, something which I doubt and probably has more to do with the kernel and OS being easy to modify and control allowing it to be extended to a large variety of use cases instead of writing a new system from scratch.
  
  There's lots of issues with their argument and some have claimed it is trolling but I reckon that would be giving them too much credit. It is likely they are just an idiot fanboying for their favourite companies desperately trying to justify their irrational biases
Might want to change the title a bit...
- Good idea, done.

That youtuber is posting garbage for rage baiting to get interactions.

Just ignore him entirely. Might as well ask a dog for technical advice. At least a dog can’t give you straight up wrong advice

thanks for the brain rot, op 🙏

Happy to provide. YouTube gave me brainrot by recommending this idiot to me, now I pass the brainrot on to everyone else

People are down-voting this poor guy. Ffs, just read what OP thinks of this:

Personally I believe this is a very poor take.

Yeah rip the post content, probably just drive-by downvoters
- Not sure what the title was before you changed it, but if I see a post in my feed that looks like this (without the "very bad take" part), I wouldn't even want to open the post to see the description. I'm glad you clarified by editing the title, but without making your stance clear in the title from the very beginning, it would be bound to receive a barrage of downvotes.
I understand that.

I upvote insightful, educational or newsworthy content and downvote clickbait. Especially YouTube clickbait.

Why my pee pee is the big pee pee: 5 reasons why

Open source is the very worst thing currently going on because it is so incredibly exploitative, it's far more exploitative than any actual company is of the workers who work at the company.

Even the people who are getting paid in open source are getting massively underpaid to do it compared to how much the people who are using their code are making, it's nothing compared to the power that is accreted by the people who have co-opted that work thanks to the open source model. And then mark zuckerberg gets to define how the internet works despite having paid for almost none of the software that his company actually needed to make that work.

It's like feudalism or serfdom, these people did the work and got nothing for it. It's like you took the worst aspects of capitalism for workers and the worst aspects of socialism for workers and put them together, that's open source. You get no power and you get no money.

It's exploitative whether the people chose to be exploited, just because someone chooses to let you exploit them does not meant that you didn't exploit them. And for the record that's how most exploitation works; convincing people to do something that turns out to be very bad for them and very good for you, and that's exactly what the open source movement has turned out to be.

I really don't see the "we post stuff on github under a gpl2 or lgpl or apache or mit license", all that is to me now is just exploitation. You can say that there's solutions but until someone demonstrates that those solutions work, it's the standard "real communism has never been tried" argument. AGPL is the only thing that I've seen so far that's an attempt to fix these fundamentally unfair compensation practices.

Getting paid in money is one motivation for people, but not the only one. Some people do things because they want to, regardless of payment. And some of them want to give what they made as a gift to anyone. The flip side is that no one can force them to do anything, it's all voluntary.
lmao how much did steve ballmer pay you to write this
It really depends alot on the situation, I do agree however, when you compare Open Source and Free Software, Open Source seems to be designed to be exploitative which is why it is supported by large companies. As you said the AGPL is really the only way to go as it means you get access to every modification a large company makes to your software, which is why the Linux kernel (albeit GPLv2, which is also a good copyleft license) has become such a big project, running on the phone I'm typing this on and the servers our Lemmy instances are on.

It's probably not the answer to everything and FUTO are trying to fix this (probably the wrong way though) but AGPL is really the best license to avoid exploitation, that way if they use it, you get in return more source code.