Why is the most functional, polished software closed source and all the crap non functional software open source?

I never said they said they hated free software
That's correct.
Hello NSA! Are you afraid people will reject the botnet and embrace freedom? Just because I want to run software the way I see fit does not make me a commie, take a hike back to Fort Meade.
Are you really this stupid or are you an unexperienced shill?
Windows 10 IS spyware, it does send data back to Microsoft, have you been living under a rock? Windows 10 installs itself on computers without the users consent, that's what I call malware. At least try a Fagioli and claim that Microsoft knows what's best for you. This is lazy denialism.

It installs itself as if it were a service pack, they did the same thing from 8 to 8.1, and its not even free for everyone anyhow, just for Windows 7 and 8 fags

Hell, this isn't the first time they gave free updates either, they did the same thing for Windows 98 users, the only delusional one here is you

It takes you clicking the red "close window" button as agreement you want win 10 installed, are you being willfully ignorant?

Your claim has no bases, also I just love relatable posts, like, tfw u step on a crak XD

why are people baiting on mongolian horse raising sites?
Shouldn't it be boring?

It's not always though. Some great pro software like Krita and now OpenToonz are FOSS. And now there's stuff like UE4 that's proprietary open source.

Then when it comes to basic programs like browser, file manager, etc. everything you use should be FOSS if you want the best experience.

Do you mean source available? Proprietary open source is very rare.

because taking a bunch of spaghetti-code pulls from pajeet really fucks over anyone who could have actually helped your project.

UE4: they distribute the full source on github, but it has a proprietary license. you can't personally redistribute any UE4 source, and you have to pay a percentage of any profits you make from a UE4 product.

Yes this is simple economics. They have to make their money somehow, and monetizing behaviour data is profitable if they can get away with it; it does not mean it's rational of us to let them do this. You really are the product if you use Windows 10.
It install itself as a colossal service pack it's almost impossible to refuse, and if you have the skills to do this using a UNIX cli is easy. In the past you could cherry pick updates easily, but no more. If you are on a limited data plan a forced Windows 10 "upgrade" could very well blow it.
You are the delusional one here. You ignore all the news on Windows 10 spying that has come out over the past year.
See more here

Yeah maybe if you're lazy or a retard.

That's source available, then, not open source.

Functional polished software is mostly very awful bloated source code, with a lot of awful inefficient solutions to problems.
But you just hire 20 people and make them fix bugs for half a year and it will mostly work.

In open-source you have (in popular repos) a lot of quality control and perfectionism. But once something small breaks everything comes tumbling down. While in closed source the idea is to make a program that doesn't have the elegance to break.

It's kinda comparable to Linux vs Windows software. In Linux you have one version of most packages, the system hangs together in a way that makes sense. But you have the drawback of dependency conflicts and systems that are easy to break. Devs aren't gonna statically link everything, because that wouldn't be elegant. They wouldn't hide half the system because the user should be in control.
In windows you have 5 versions of C++ redistributable, all kinds of weird DirectX stuff all over the place, half the system is hidden, software is very static.
But hey, it's hard to break.

It really isn't (outside of distributions that freeze packages like Ubuntu, which carries other problems and even then they may break shit). Some parties are commited to breaking shit.
GTK3 for example. That's enough to break the user experience when your theme suddenly doesn't work

...

There seems to be this strange misconception that all proprietary software has to be a shitty bloated mess like Microsoft and Adobe products.
Well, that's just not right.
I've used some pieces of proprietary software that rival, if not surpass in certain areas, their FOSS competitors.

1, Irfanview -- a lightweight image viewer with plugins and support for almost every image format known to man. Windows only, which is sad.

2, Winamp -- the legendary media player. Sadly dead and Windows-only.

3, HP-UX -- a proprietary UNIX operating system. Comfy as fuck in a UNIX kind of way and has several advantages over Linux in areas such as LVM, clusters, and some other enterprise stuff. It's only available on Itanium, so it's slowly dying with the platform.

depends on the point of view

for some, open source environment is the most logical and clean way to do stuff while windows and it's related software is a clusterfuck based on business needs that don't necesarilly translate into computing very well, and it's very ugly and hacky

even now, windows 10 contains a lot of stuff dating back to windows xp or earlier NT systems and it's a constant dance around 20 years worth of windows compatible software, where linux can change of the whim of kernel or distro developers with no loss of compatibility as they can just recompile everything

imagemagick

mpv, xmms, cmus, vlc (like it or not)

Try imv or sxiv. If nothing supports your format, IM's display command.
If you're a GUI babby, Quodlibet or Deadbeef.
Well, sure. But OpenIndiana or *BSD should have a similar feel.

OpenIndiana is a Solaris derivative and Solaris was always strange in its own way.

BSD is a completely different Unix family. It's like a distant cousin to HP-UX, which is a licensed fork of System V.

Also, I'm not looking for alternatives to aforementioned proprietary software. I'm just saying quality does not depend on license. Just look at GNOME and KDE. Both free, both shit.

Here's the thing, open source is fantastic at making tools and back end tech. Because that's what developers want, no one want's to pay for, and developers don't have time to make during work. This software is often well polished but low level.

However very few open source projects makes it out to the normies because normies have no use for them. The underlying tech might, but that's when it's bundled with something else and sold.

Of course there's oceans of exceptions to this.

Just look at linux vs OSX. Linux is essentially a development tool, most distros and releases are well polished. Vut the only distro close to making it main stream is ubuntu and it's littered with bloat-ware, advertisement and earns money from being bundled with dells and shit. OSX is what I would give my mom, because she doesn't need the freedom that gnu/linux gives, even though OSX uses a lot of tech developed through open source projects.

idea is>>613726

But then why not just sacrifice some "elegance" and add some redundant code, so that if one small thing breaks, you still have a fallback? (I know nothing about coding btw.)

whoops

You are even shit at propietary software.