It wins in the sense that you still have access to the software and code, and you have the option to either hire someone new to maintaining it or switch to something else. Closed source proprietary software only leaves you with the latter choice.
An important component of the cost to consider is how long we expect a company to support a piece of software, and how much it would cost to migrate everything when they drop support. FOSS wins in this regard, especially if you can get a support contact with the devs.
Or, make it fade more and more for each “unique” visitor. Make sure it hits after they start their marketing campaign.
“Insufficient detail. Please ask a specific question.”
This is a very real problem from the answering side. So many people would rather have you guess what they’re trying to ask and then get mad at you when you guess wrong.
This needs to have multiple levels of “openness” to distinguish between having access to the code, the dataset, a documented training procedure, and the final weights. I wouldn’t consider it fully open unless these are all available, but I still appreciate getting something over nothing, and I think that should be encouraged.
Standing on the shoulder of dwarves hiding deep underground
And if they do find it, it’ll all be kept hush hush, they’ll force an update on everyone with no explanation, some people will do everything in their power to refuse because they need to keep their legacy software running, and the exploit stays alive in the wild.
Tbh, I’d rather work and line the shareholders pockets a little bit more than be bored out of my mind in a pointless meeting.
Same for me. I’ve known about Docker for many years now but never understood why I would want to use it when I can just as easily install things directly and just never touch them. Then I ran into dependency problems where two pieces of software required different versions of the same library. Docker just made this problem completely trivial.
Having come from the world of C++, this was a huge step up.