4 ms·

> Telling someone they don't 'understand' something is abrasive and mean-spirited. It is no more abrasive, than to dismiss someone's concerns as "protecting a

> Telling someone they don't 'understand' something is abrasive and mean-spirited. It is no more abrasive, than to dismiss someone's concerns as "protecting a sacred cow". I don't think either was abrasive, worthy of a downvote at any rate. I did not downvote the OP, I only wrote to disagree. > I'm damm sure I understand FOSS just fine thank you Great, then write some more specific things about why I'm wrong instead of complaining that I'm not polite enough, without actually applying the same standards to the comments coming from the same viewpoint that you happen to agree with. > market share does sustain the FOSS ecosytem Sometimes market share does sustain the FOSS ecosystem indirectly. Many other ways of increasing market share do not sustain it at all. So growing a large user base for its own sake should not be one's primary goal or strategy. I'm quite happy to elaborate more but it's probably more suitable for an essay.

SeanDav 11y ago
> "It is no more abrasive, than to dismiss someone's concerns as "protecting a sacred cow". " Since that comment is aimed at me I should probably chime in now and say that my comment about "sacred cows" has been misinterpreted. I was stating that I don't have any hidden agendas, I was not trying to imply that the author of the original article had any "sacred cows". In other words, I was emphasizing the fact that I am a reasonably independent outsider.
slgeorge 11y ago
You've made two claims: a. "[I] care less about market share because market share is not, and never has been, what sustains the FOSS ecosystem" b. "Sometimes market share does sustain the FOSS ecosystem indirectly" I disagreed with what you said the first time. The second response is different because you're accepting that sometimes market share does sustain FOSS. You're also saying that sometimes building market share does not improve the sustainability of FOSS: I can accept that as true easily. If you accept that sometimes it does sustain FOSS, then the questions are what level of "sustaining" you want and what you precisely mean by the FOSS ecosystem My definition of sustain would be quite simple, I want to see FOSS developing quickly and end-users receiving the benefit of using free software. Notice my definition of "FOSS ecosystem" includes users, and the variety of contributions from supporting FOSS, to working on documentation through to development. Consequently, market share is important to me because more users means more contributors: both paid and unpaid. Without paid developers there would be no Intel graphics/networking for Linux, no Python, no Firefox or any of RedHat or Ubuntu. The larger your market share the more paid developers you can attract which speeds innovation overall. That is not to negate the work of unpaid developers who have done and do fantastic work in FOSS: if there were no commercial developers there would still be FOSS but it wouldn't be as developed or as mature. The capabilities and speed of innovation within FOSS without full time paid developers would be fundamentally different. Your last point is that as "sometimes" market-share does not sustain the FOSS ecosystem then it should not be the "primary" goal "for it's own sake". You'd have to write a longer essay as I don't see how that point follows. I'm sure some market share increase for FOSS doesn't increase the number of contributors. But overall I perceive a positive spinning wheel where more market share (e.g users) means more contributors to FOSS both paid and unpaid. In fact, I think we already have fantastic FOSS, if there were 'units of effort' to spend on improving the FOSS ecosystem I would be all-in spending them all on increasing the number of users.
- infinity0 11y ago
  > If you accept that sometimes it does sustain FOSS [..] I don't see how that point [sometimes it does not] follows. There are many different ways to achieve market share, and these different strategies have (a) many consequences beyond merely (b) getting more paid developers. Even though (b) can help the FOSS ecosystem, in many cases (a) includes effects that harm the FOSS ecosystem, that more than offsets (b). For example, this mjg59 article talks about Canonical's trademarks. This can be argued to "increase market share" but it undermines the principles of FOSS, and prevents other developers from building on top of much of Ubuntu et al. (edit: another thing is not bothering to spend money on core infrastructure products because they're less attractive to users; OpenSSL is one famous example but there are much better pieces of software out there that deserve similar if not more levels of funding.) Another thing to consider long-term and short-term effects. Even if one big company really does FOSS genuinely well for a short time, if they capture 99% market share that is still an uncomfortable situation, because eventually there is a massive risk they will ditch the FOSS part and turn parts of their software ecosystem less free (now that everyone is locked in). The risk increases with churn as new executives are brought in, that don't care about the values of the previous executives. (edit: the risk is less with a product that is more easy to fork, e.g. software that does not used centralised services, and FOSS already carries this quality somewhat.)
gravypod 11y ago
I'd say that I have to agree with your core point. The article was about FOSS. You could replace Ubuntu with any other company that holds the same draconian ideals that they hold and the argument would still hold.

SeanDav 11y ago

> "It is no more abrasive, than to dismiss someone's concerns as "protecting a sacred cow". " Since that comment is aimed at me I should probably chime in now and say that my comment about "sacred cows" has been misinterpreted. I was stating that I don't have any hidden agendas, I was not trying to imply that the author of the original article had any "sacred cows". In other words, I was emphasizing the fact that I am a reasonably independent outsider.

slgeorge 11y ago

You've made two claims: a. "[I] care less about market share because market share is not, and never has been, what sustains the FOSS ecosystem" b. "Sometimes market share does sustain the FOSS ecosystem indirectly" I disagreed with what you said the first time. The second response is different because you're accepting that sometimes market share does sustain FOSS. You're also saying that sometimes building market share does not improve the sustainability of FOSS: I can accept that as true easily. If you accept that sometimes it does sustain FOSS, then the questions are what level of "sustaining" you want and what you precisely mean by the FOSS ecosystem My definition of sustain would be quite simple, I want to see FOSS developing quickly and end-users receiving the benefit of using free software. Notice my definition of "FOSS ecosystem" includes users, and the variety of contributions from supporting FOSS, to working on documentation through to development. Consequently, market share is important to me because more users means more contributors: both paid and unpaid. Without paid developers there would be no Intel graphics/networking for Linux, no Python, no Firefox or any of RedHat or Ubuntu. The larger your market share the more paid developers you can attract which speeds innovation overall. That is not to negate the work of unpaid developers who have done and do fantastic work in FOSS: if there were no commercial developers there would still be FOSS but it wouldn't be as developed or as mature. The capabilities and speed of innovation within FOSS without full time paid developers would be fundamentally different. Your last point is that as "sometimes" market-share does not sustain the FOSS ecosystem then it should not be the "primary" goal "for it's own sake". You'd have to write a longer essay as I don't see how that point follows. I'm sure some market share increase for FOSS doesn't increase the number of contributors. But overall I perceive a positive spinning wheel where more market share (e.g users) means more contributors to FOSS both paid and unpaid. In fact, I think we already have fantastic FOSS, if there were 'units of effort' to spend on improving the FOSS ecosystem I would be all-in spending them all on increasing the number of users.

infinity0 11y ago
> If you accept that sometimes it does sustain FOSS [..] I don't see how that point [sometimes it does not] follows. There are many different ways to achieve market share, and these different strategies have (a) many consequences beyond merely (b) getting more paid developers. Even though (b) can help the FOSS ecosystem, in many cases (a) includes effects that harm the FOSS ecosystem, that more than offsets (b). For example, this mjg59 article talks about Canonical's trademarks. This can be argued to "increase market share" but it undermines the principles of FOSS, and prevents other developers from building on top of much of Ubuntu et al. (edit: another thing is not bothering to spend money on core infrastructure products because they're less attractive to users; OpenSSL is one famous example but there are much better pieces of software out there that deserve similar if not more levels of funding.) Another thing to consider long-term and short-term effects. Even if one big company really does FOSS genuinely well for a short time, if they capture 99% market share that is still an uncomfortable situation, because eventually there is a massive risk they will ditch the FOSS part and turn parts of their software ecosystem less free (now that everyone is locked in). The risk increases with churn as new executives are brought in, that don't care about the values of the previous executives. (edit: the risk is less with a product that is more easy to fork, e.g. software that does not used centralised services, and FOSS already carries this quality somewhat.)

gravypod 11y ago

I'd say that I have to agree with your core point. The article was about FOSS. You could replace Ubuntu with any other company that holds the same draconian ideals that they hold and the argument would still hold.