Open Source Vs Closed Source w/ Enri Marini and Mark O'Donovan 

It's for this reason - that the people writing it are the people using it - that I place zero trust on industry associations like ISA and CESMII. Despite receiving taxpayer dollars to purportedly build open source projects that are truly open source through and through, they miserably fail to do so and double down on shilling the same the propaganda fed by systems integrators everywhere - commercial proprietary closed source products today, tomorrow, and forever.

Nobody ever said open source projects are never validated. In fact, it was stated that because it is open source, there are far more eyeballs on it and the technology can be validated to meet needs & compliance. What's important is to decouple the fundamental technology from the tools that validate it. This decoupling allows you to achieve economies of scale & prevents tyranny (or what you may commonly know as "vendor lock-in"). Hope this helps.

@@EthicsAndEngineering thanks for your input. Yes, however, in life science you need the formal proof, which I have never seen to come for free with an open source product - though - with UMH, I am not sure - maybe it does. Considering the standard automated testing approach in software development nowadays is close to what is needed. Maybe there are already initiatives to provide the formal trace?

@@BernhardLiebezeit Nobody is saying you will not be able to formally validate a system's performance/security/access controls. All I am saying is your point is moot - validation does not need to be done by the same product executing work. Standards bodies and laws never state that you must validate a system using "INSERT VENDOR NAME HERE". And any laws/policies/standards that do so are absolutely corrupt & tyrannical. It is common & good practice (generally & within open source projects) to decouple this functionality. There is no need for these to be tightly coupled, it does not provide any legitimate benefit. Furthermore, open source projects are in fact rigorously validated & proven to be more hardened & resilient than closed source. OpenSSL is literally one of the best examples of this. I can certainly understand your confusion and initial revulsion to open source and I can tell you it is baseless - a fear placed there through systematic propaganda thanks to big tech names. Open source has always been / will always be more resilient, hardened, and secure than closed because everyone is able to scrutinize its operations at every level & provide immediate feedback, as well as patch as they deem fit for their needs. This is because open source is subject to the intense scrutiny of the scientific method. Closed is not.

@@BernhardLiebezeit The GAMP5 certification is provided by the company selling the software. How do Pharma company cross check the validation of such a certificate and if it has really undergone those tests , the source code is never made available to the pharma companies thus how can they cross verify if its up to the mark?

@@EthicsAndEngineering if i am not mistaken in open source too the owner or the head committee cross checks any additions or changes being provided by anyone before its added to the main branch as a version. So there is a test that it undergoes but not sure if this test can be made available as a certificate for GAMP5 ?

We'll see what we can do. We do try to limit the total number of channels in the server so the server is easier to navigate :)

This just isn’t true. For mainstream projects, it may be true to some extent. By and large, this is not the case. It’s important to distinguish between people who are paid a salary to execute functions for a company and their position never allowing/explicitly calling for open source contribution but still do commit labor hours to open source projects VS those who are literally paid to primarily contribute to open source projects. By and large, it’s the first case. This is an important topic to discuss further, as it gets into the fundamental ethos of open source - how to remove the financier from the project.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. I realize that may not be what you were intending to communicate but even still on the topic of exceptions to the rule - so what? We should never simply take someone at their word. Like I mentioned - acknowledge someone at their word but open source always allows everyone to absolutely verify the accuracy of the material. For that reason, I place no trust in closed source for use in industrial automation.

Highbyte and their investors are the exception that prove the rule. The Maine Fund and the private investors are uniquely focused on the customer outcomes - which one big reason why we partner and advocate for HighByte so strongly.

Thank you for sharing!

I think it’s internal. Michael Walker in the industry 4.0 community discord server would know.

🎯

The point at that section of the conversation was that a very small percentage of the community pays to support everything we do. Producing all of the content we do, including the free content, accrues heavy costs. In order for us to afford to produce all of our training content, we offer paid training that goes far more in depth, and the students who pay for this training support everything we do. We operate with the philosophy, as Walker has mentioned previously in other videos, that we have to make enough money to keep the lights on. We do not try to make money, but we have to cover the costs of the content we produce in order to keep producing content. Many of the people who have gone through our paid training have gone on to help their clients, or organization, and educate them, and help to continually educate the community through the Discord server, comment sections, LinkedIn, etc.. This in turn serves our mission, which is to save and create middle class jobs by teaching people how to do more with less. The foundational content, while somewhat technical, does not go nearly into the weeds as what is covered in our paid content. We don't dismiss the comments about people wanting more free technical comment, but we have always answered that we have paid training to cover the costs of all the content we produce. The prep time put in for us to do a Mastermind Lesson is 40 - 80 hours. The prep time for a Mentorship lesson is 20 - 30 hours. The prep time for us to produce a RU-vid video (whether it's a whiteboard video, podcast, etc.) is 2 - 4 hours. While we would give away everything for free, it's not viable. The time and money put in is too great. And no need to apologize about negative comments. We do appreciate the feedback, and it helps drive our direction and where we can improve. Feel free to keep commenting, we always appreciate it.

@Lachlan.Wright As someone on the autistic spectrum, I want to clarify my laughter wasn't meant to disenfranchise anyone. It often happens involuntarily, and I apologize if it came across that way. Our RU-vid channel primarily focuses on providing technical training and assisting people for free. However, it's essential to balance this with offering paid content to sustain our operations. Without this balance, maintaining the channel wouldn't be feasible. I hope this sheds light on our approach and addresses any confusion about our channel's purpose.

@@4.0Solutions I think one of the first things on your website should be a representation of how it is made possible that the content can be provided to the community 800 paying vs 1mio learner. I think the value of the act of providing this content should be transparent and noted by every single one.

@@ZackScriven Mate, there is nothing to apologize for at all. I don't want to have our conversation turn into a conversation between GPTs so I think it will be best for me to give it a rest. I definitely liked how you talked a lot more in this one. 1000% improvement over the recent conversation with Matt.

@@BernhardLiebezeit 🤣 back and forth between GPTs. Thanks mate.