• null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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
          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
            3
            ·
            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
              3
              ·
              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.