Ask HN: Are you more likely to use something because it is open source?

Yes, but probably more because it usually means I retain control of my own data, rather than allowing some third-party to collect it all.

I don't have the skills to audit code myself, but I like things that run locally rather than backing up on somebody else's computer in a honeypot somewhere.

Developer tools --- Yes

Business solutions --- No

A few examples --- US payroll. There is no competent open source solution that I am aware of.

Bill payment/money transfer --- Any mistake can be time consuming and costly to correct.

A spreadsheet is not the only tool most businesses need. There is lots of business software and services where open source is unavailable or does not present a practical, trustworthy solution IMO. A common thread that seems to run through a lot of these cases is liability.

Yes, but only if there is an executable or installer I can save in my downloads folder and use again in a few years.

I got burned by WikidPad, an open source personal wiki, which I've been using for a decade or more. The 2012 windows installer still works great, but the source code on Linux is effectively worthless because of breaking changes in the WxPython library[1] it depends on. Initially it seems fine, but only later do you realize that none of the dialog boxes actually work, effectively killing its utility.

It was that instance of failure that is the primary reason I still run Windows instead of Linux. I had moved over and all seemed good for a week, until I couldn't use WikidPad.

I tried to fix WikidPad myself, or find a fork that worked, but it was too far away from my skillset. There were 43 dialog boxes to fix.

Eventually I gave up and reverted to Windows. Perhaps I should fork it again, and give it another try, before Windows 12 hits.

[1] https://www.wxpython.org/

Proprietary software is inherently more favorable for the developer and less favorable for the user. Any way that you look at it, being closed source is an anti-feature that detracts from the utility of the program. So, I never want to use closed source software unless I absolutely have to.

Definitely. Especially if I'm going to spend lots of time learning it. For me, open source means:

- I have a visibility in to code, issues, features, development.

- I can eventually fork the project or use someone's fork if the main project becomes obsolete. I can also keep using the obsolete version forever. For SASS software, I can't rely on it forever.

- There is an option I eventually contribute.

- There is a greater chance of having a community with lots of blog posts, docs & Questions & answers online.

- No mandatory recurring payments.

Yes, although there's nuance to that:

If it's for something personal, then sure. It allows me to edit the code to fix small bugs or otherwise tweak it to my own needs.

If it's for something that actually handles my money in any way, then only if I can audit the code myself and the libraries it uses. I err on the side of over due-diligence for sure, and I'm fairly confident in my abilities in auditing code in a few languages that luckily are also commonly used enough that they are ubiquitous - Python, JS, Go, Solidity, etc. If your open source project is written in Brainfuck, I mean, props, but I'm not going to use that for anything production worthy.

I lean more toward open source, especially if it has a big community. If I have to do something for work and there are no popular open source tools, I'll go for something that managed by a reliable company.

Depends if it's for work or personal.

For personal use, yes, as I do have a poke around in the source code as well its immediate project artefacts and community (if exists) to get an idea of project health and trustworthiness.

For work, not necessarily. I'd want to go for the most convenient option possible, that comes close to requirements and has a sufficient popularity. In some cases that might be an open source project, but even then it might be paid for by virtue of being managed by AWS, for example.

Not quite. I'm more likely to take a business risk in using a smaller or less mature piece of tech if it is open source.

The thinking there is that if the project or company behind it fail, at least I can continue to use the tech while making a plan to maintain it or migrate away.

It's unclear if that's a sound reason or just an intuitive take.

Of course. You don't need to investigate the license, learn about the vendor, inquire about payment structure, talk to sales people, justify the purchase to your manager, etc. There's much less friction, all thing being equal.

Definitely, yes!

Because two things - first, I like when people are bold enough to show code, second, because closed source does not guarantee from mistakes, in many cases definitely otherwise.

Yes. The community is just much better.

In the area of security, if the software is closed source, I don’t use it. The code has to be open to inspection.

Yes, except things mostly made by a single company, especially if it is VC founded.

Yes, postman was the last of them I was cheated. No more. Except Jetbrains products.

No.

For library usage, yes.

When I want the code, yes.

For everything else, no, never impact my decision.

Yes.