yeah, the general rule of thumb seems to be that if it's universal, it needs to be open. The farther niche it goes, the less open it has to be, on principle of utility. Open standards are only good people it's so easy for them to get accepted. That's why closed standards often just don't go very far.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The farther niche it goes, the less open it has to be, on principle of utility.

That's a great point! I kind of skipped over, that. Good add, thanks.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

it's a rather weird concept, but it makes sense. If you want to standardize, let's say, threaded hardware across the continental US that you would inherently need to do away with any closed standards, assuming you want it to actually work, and along with that, whatever you settle on, needs to be open.

You could theoretically do this with closed source, but the problem here is that there will be someone that comes along and does it with open source, and if it's better, you're fucked. And if it's equal, and cheaper, you're fucked. And if it's marginally worse, but trivial to adopt, you're fucked.