• null@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Weird that they would say something totally different from what they mean…

    • SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean, they didn’t though Theoretically, well-funded teams would be able to create more secure software and fix vulnerabilities faster than some random guy who works a full-time job and codes in his free time

      • null@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        You say they didn’t, and then go on to make a point they didn’t make…

        They didn’t comment on funding whatsoever. Plenty of open-source software gets funding, and not all closed source software gets funding.

        The issue is with bullying and burnout. Nothing to do with being closed or open source.

        • SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m sorry that I’m apparently not getting my point across to you

          Proprietary software is often made by a corporation, who pays full-time developers. Those full-time developers are given a salary to work on that software. That salary is normally more than what open-source devs make off their software. The team who is paid to work full-time on the software will patch issues faster (theoretically)

          I bet you’ll find something wrong with this, but I don’t care

          • null@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            There’s nothing wrong with what you’re saying, I’m not challenging the point you’re making here.

            I’m challenging your ability to mind-read and ascribe that point to a different commenter.