I'm assuming that Whoogle is open-source and DuckDuckGo is proprietary, and that Whoogle is on a relatively primitive stage with lots of bugs while DuckDuckGo is bug-tested and has many more features and has been optimized in various ways etc. But what would be the benefits of using Whoogle instead of DuckDuckGo?
Whoogle can be contributed to thousands of devs as its open source, Whereas proprietary sh*t is just looked after a team of developers. Whoogle has a greater potential ahead. Its basically like windows and arch, windows being duckduck and arch being whoogle
yes I understand that thousands of devs can contribute, but what does it actually imply in terms of actual features available to the end-user?
You get actual Google search results which happen to be better than DDG ones for me. Also some of the goodies and easily forwarded results to privacy friendly alternative platforms.
that seems pretty good, since Google does indeed have search methods unavailable to DDG and also displays more information on Google Maps compared to DDG maps. What about Google's manipulation of search results to censor ideas it disagrees with or ideas it doesn't want people to hear about? Does Whoogle have that also, or does it display the search results neutrally like DDG?
Tried both, went back to Google because neither gave me reliable good results for a number of search terms. I know Google is apparently evil and all but I couldn't care less. Not like they're gonna assassinate me by knowing I Google'd something.
It actually means more features and better features. Some companies compromise the end user accessibility, etc for their personal interests. Which won't happen with open source software.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
If not getting assassinated is your bar for whether software is good or bad I would say you are in good shape with almost any software.
Speaking practically, it doesn't mean that at all. If you compare open source software to their commercial counterparts, it isn't terribly common that the open source alternatives have more an better features. Generally speaking, large commercial software projects with large teams of dedicated staff and paying customers who demand certain features are more likely to be feature rich.
Ultimately, companies do what it takes to sell more software and drive revenue. That rarely results in "less features" although it might result in other things which are problematic.
Of course it does. Many open-source solutions are controlled by a small group of people who are volunteering their time. They set the direction of their solution and often won't accept contributions that don't match their vision. I do this with my own projects.
Since they are open-source, they can be forked. However, that often doesn't happen because maintaining a fork can be a lot of work.
Please don't take this as me being opposed to open-source software. It is just that you seem to have some extreme ideas about open-source that don't really work that way in practice. Just like everything else in the world, open-source software is imperfect. It is just imperfect in different ways than commercial software.
Well said, @dalto
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.