A web page of these characteristics cannot be FLOSS if it is not self-hosted, which in the case of AlternativeTo would be absurd.
In web services it is often also irrelevant if it is FOSS or not, in these cases it is more important who publishes it and the commercial interests behind it or not. It is not the same if it is done by an individual, a community or a large multinational, as is the case for example with GitHub, owned by Microsoft.
That is a good point. The group behind such a project is much more important. Could you elaborate a bit on why these web services cannot be open-source, though? What would be different if the owners just open-sourced their code? I am afraid I do not know enough to understand the reasons behind it.
Naturally the page format can be perfectly OpenSource, there are many FOSS applications to create a web page, there are even forks from Wikipedia. But the page as such is one thing and the content is another, apart from the page it must also be hosted on a server, not everyone has a server at home to be able to host a voluminous page and allow a large number of visitors on a daily basis.
F(L)OSS is great for apps, but when you like to build a stable online service not so. As with the Wikipedia, you can fork the page, but you have to put the contents and you have to host it in a stable server (and also pay it).
Apart from AlternativeTO, one of my favorite page is this one, with online and ofline apps (freeware), build by two brothers electricians in their spare time and own money, but with an outstanding quality, good and fast user support and a excellent TOS and privacy (anónimous, no tracksn o ads, no costs, no registring and do what you want with it)
https://www.ssuitesoft.com/categories/webapps.htm
Not FLOSS but equivalent
Those are all valid points and I think you are right, but it still does not give me a better understanding of what is the difference for the group of maintainers behind such web services. Proprietary web services have to be hosted somewhere too, and the provider of the hosting server will want to be paid as well. Therefore, the same problem stands for both open-source and closed-source web services.
The only difference I see here is that proprietary services might be getting the money to maintain such websites and its content from selling their user’s data and/or by providing (personalized) adds, and maybe they do not want their users to know that, so they keep their code hidden from the public eyes. Of course, there are donations from users and any form of subscription model, but that can be arranged for both FOSS and proprietary web services. The argument closed-source web services might be more secure and resilient to cracker attacks might be valid in some cases (I guess), but that is another topic entirely and mostly specific to certain services, not a general problem (I would say). Getting money by “exploiting your users” is a bit more complicated with FOSS web services, because anyone can see what it is done with their data once the data leave your hardware.
So what am I missing? Why is it better to maintain a proprietary web service supporting FOSS instead of a FOSS one? Where do the money for hosting (and for more – employee’s wages etc.) come from in proprietary web services that support FOSS, that it is more convenient to keep the service closed-source?
cannot be FLOSS if it is not self-hosted
Or do you mean this as in you cannot know what the server provider will do with the web service data if you do not self-host? That would be true unless all the stored data are encrypted, but yeah, in general, there has to be a certain amount of trust put in the provider, but I believe that would still hold for proprietary web services as well.
Also, I am getting Access denied error from your link. Not currently sure why.
Yes, the reason for a webservice to be closed source to be more difícult to attack, important in the case of Office suites and Tools, like in this SSuite can be a valid argument. SSuite don’t use any of the tracking methodes, no ads, no suscription model, donation only. It’s open it and use it (Html5), or download it and use it (in this case Windows only). Online, apart te office apps, has some system tools, graphic editors, online TV,radio, newspaper, include some games. All of them also works on mobile too.
https://alternativeto.net/software/ssuite-office/about/
A web page of these characteristics cannot be FLOSS if it is not self-hosted, which in the case of AlternativeTo would be absurd. In web services it is often also irrelevant if it is FOSS or not, in these cases it is more important who publishes it and the commercial interests behind it or not. It is not the same if it is done by an individual, a community or a large multinational, as is the case for example with GitHub, owned by Microsoft.
That is a good point. The group behind such a project is much more important. Could you elaborate a bit on why these web services cannot be open-source, though? What would be different if the owners just open-sourced their code? I am afraid I do not know enough to understand the reasons behind it.
Naturally the page format can be perfectly OpenSource, there are many FOSS applications to create a web page, there are even forks from Wikipedia. But the page as such is one thing and the content is another, apart from the page it must also be hosted on a server, not everyone has a server at home to be able to host a voluminous page and allow a large number of visitors on a daily basis. F(L)OSS is great for apps, but when you like to build a stable online service not so. As with the Wikipedia, you can fork the page, but you have to put the contents and you have to host it in a stable server (and also pay it). Apart from AlternativeTO, one of my favorite page is this one, with online and ofline apps (freeware), build by two brothers electricians in their spare time and own money, but with an outstanding quality, good and fast user support and a excellent TOS and privacy (anónimous, no tracksn o ads, no costs, no registring and do what you want with it) https://www.ssuitesoft.com/categories/webapps.htm Not FLOSS but equivalent
Those are all valid points and I think you are right, but it still does not give me a better understanding of what is the difference for the group of maintainers behind such web services. Proprietary web services have to be hosted somewhere too, and the provider of the hosting server will want to be paid as well. Therefore, the same problem stands for both open-source and closed-source web services.
The only difference I see here is that proprietary services might be getting the money to maintain such websites and its content from selling their user’s data and/or by providing (personalized) adds, and maybe they do not want their users to know that, so they keep their code hidden from the public eyes. Of course, there are donations from users and any form of subscription model, but that can be arranged for both FOSS and proprietary web services. The argument closed-source web services might be more secure and resilient to cracker attacks might be valid in some cases (I guess), but that is another topic entirely and mostly specific to certain services, not a general problem (I would say). Getting money by “exploiting your users” is a bit more complicated with FOSS web services, because anyone can see what it is done with their data once the data leave your hardware.
So what am I missing? Why is it better to maintain a proprietary web service supporting FOSS instead of a FOSS one? Where do the money for hosting (and for more – employee’s wages etc.) come from in proprietary web services that support FOSS, that it is more convenient to keep the service closed-source?
Or do you mean this as in you cannot know what the server provider will do with the web service data if you do not self-host? That would be true unless all the stored data are encrypted, but yeah, in general, there has to be a certain amount of trust put in the provider, but I believe that would still hold for proprietary web services as well.
Also, I am getting
Access deniederror from your link. Not currently sure why.Seems that the host denied the access from some countries as I see before, maybe you can ask them why. supportservices@ssuiteoffice.com and ssuitesupportservices@protonmail.com
Yes, the reason for a webservice to be closed source to be more difícult to attack, important in the case of Office suites and Tools, like in this SSuite can be a valid argument. SSuite don’t use any of the tracking methodes, no ads, no suscription model, donation only. It’s open it and use it (Html5), or download it and use it (in this case Windows only). Online, apart te office apps, has some system tools, graphic editors, online TV,radio, newspaper, include some games. All of them also works on mobile too. https://alternativeto.net/software/ssuite-office/about/
That might be the reason. Very well, thank you for the information and further explanation. It surly gives me something to think about.
Why? I make my living as a Site Reliability Engineer and I mostly use FOSS for various reasons.
This is very interesting; I’m a FLOSS zealot, but work for a company that makes proprietary
bullshitsoftware and this gives me a nice out.