What’s the biggest lie of open source?

A day earlier,  niksmac asked hacker News the question: “What’s the biggest lie of open source?” This has led to a lot of discussion. From the responses of other netizens, they focus mainly on open source security, cost of use, commercialization, open source spirit and ethics.

Fbhabbed, who received the most replies, raised the security issue, saying that the biggest lie of open source was “to assume that the source code is open and that open source programs are safe” and that “in fact it is a false sense of security”.

He thinks you should compile your own binaries from the source code, not blindly believe in downloaded binaries. In addition, he also mentioned that open source security is based on enough people to read code and conduct vulnerability reviews, but some software is not popular enough, and some software code is too large to operate.

gmuslera agrees. However, he points out that both open source and closed-source software are subject to security issues that may be resolved more quickly in open source.

“Open source software has no cost” is another highly discussed lie about open source. “I’m worried about young people who have too romantic visions of open source, and they’re asking open source heroes how to create software based on their considerations,” says p0d. He reminds these people to pay more “before they become ARPANET or Linus Torvalds.”

Obviously, what we’re talking about here is labor costs and contribution to open source. Many netizens agree, and thevagarant believes that those who benefit from the project should contribute, but most people receive gifts from the software and don’t give it back. iekahVa5 is also struggling with the heavy workload of maintainers.

Regarding the contribution to open source, the netizen Waynetfw points out that another lie is that “open source contributors have a higher sense of moral superiority than other contributors such as testers and donors”. Some people compare their history of contributions to a project with others to prove that they have more say in the project. Waynetfw is unceremonious about these people as “self-righteous assholes” because contributing to open source isn’t just a way to contribute code, and code contributors aren’t necessarily superior.

When it comes to the cost of open source, the above mentions the cost of manpower, naturally also pointed out the economic cost of the lie: “open source is cheap.” BrandoEIFoIIto says that if he does IT business in the company, he will choose a complete set of SaaS services at the expense of which maintenance costs will be offset. The part where open source software isn’t cheap is running and maintaining them on its own.

open-source-ux questions the spirit of open source, “can sell open source products to users and make a living” is one of the places where the open source spirit failed. He endorses the use of open source software to provide customers with solutions to make money, but rejects the practice of selling open source products to customers and letting them run their own operations. In his view, the GNU project still “encourages people who redistribute free software to charge for their own will or ability” that makes no sense in today’s online world.

The discussion under this question is ongoing, what do you think is the biggest lie of open source?