3 ms·

"things often work better when you pay people upfront rather than get something for free and let them fend for themselves"... Whoah, for a second I thought thi

"things often work better when you pay people upfront rather than get something for free and let them fend for themselves"... Whoah, for a second I thought this was 1999.

ksk 8y ago
I guess I must have fallen into a time machine since I just purchased Photoshop last month.
- code_duck 8y ago
  That would be which logical fallacy? Something where you take something I said to a nonsensical extreme? I certainly never asserted that people did not pay for software. My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now.
  - ksk 8y ago
    >My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now. Yes, it is indeed proven that when you pay people to develop software, it works great. (Linux, FF, Chrome, Photoshop, Windows, etc, etc). The license doesn't seem to make much of a difference. When you don't - (your typical freeware on download.com) - they have to figure out a revenue stream after the fact, and the choices they end up making cause them to be on the front page of HN where people line up to call them "scum". Obviously this is not about hobbyist/part-time developers with a github repo, who are already getting paid through an external job, etc.
pjmlp 8y ago
Looking at the official numbers of desktop Linux installed systems looks like it.
- code_duck 8y ago
  Why would we take that one, narrow specific segment of software taken as an example of the success or value of open source as a whole? It would be as useful as comparing web server software market share as an indicator of whether Microsoft has succeeded as a company.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Moving goal posts here? I thought the subject was desktop software. Yes, Linux won the server side, it is hard to fight against free beer. Now getting desktop software companies to invest in such market is another story.

"things often work better when you pay people upfront rather than get something for free and let them fend for themselves"... Whoah, for a second I thought this was 1999.

ksk 8y ago

I guess I must have fallen into a time machine since I just purchased Photoshop last month.

code_duck 8y ago
That would be which logical fallacy? Something where you take something I said to a nonsensical extreme? I certainly never asserted that people did not pay for software. My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now.
- ksk 8y ago
  >My point is that free software is very proven as a development, distribution, whatever method by now. Yes, it is indeed proven that when you pay people to develop software, it works great. (Linux, FF, Chrome, Photoshop, Windows, etc, etc). The license doesn't seem to make much of a difference. When you don't - (your typical freeware on download.com) - they have to figure out a revenue stream after the fact, and the choices they end up making cause them to be on the front page of HN where people line up to call them "scum". Obviously this is not about hobbyist/part-time developers with a github repo, who are already getting paid through an external job, etc.

pjmlp 8y ago

Looking at the official numbers of desktop Linux installed systems looks like it.

code_duck 8y ago
Why would we take that one, narrow specific segment of software taken as an example of the success or value of open source as a whole? It would be as useful as comparing web server software market share as an indicator of whether Microsoft has succeeded as a company.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Moving goal posts here? I thought the subject was desktop software. Yes, Linux won the server side, it is hard to fight against free beer. Now getting desktop software companies to invest in such market is another story.