3 ms·

I believe strongly that privatization of so much we depend on is harmful. I think people are suffering because of this, making the situation urgent. I see that

I believe strongly that privatization of so much we depend on is harmful. I think people are suffering because of this, making the situation urgent. I see that we can develop the technology we need all as open source. Funding is an important challenge but one I believe is possible to overcome. Look at Prusa Research and their all open source 3D printer with rave reviews. They’ve funded research, development, customer service, manufacturing, and worldwide promotional tours all with a machine that is open source. Why can’t we do that with medical equipment and computers and automobile and factory automation? In fact we could. And thus I strongly advocate that we invest great effort in this. I wish to withdraw as much as possible my support of a closed proprietary privatized system and put my daily efforts in to something open for everyone.

NicoJuicy 8y ago
Privatisation and open source are 2 different things. If you are against privatisation, great. Go to a communist country and prove it. Don't forget the 996 debacle or Jack Macs response to it. You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. You know you won't do any of those both things. But probably you have an excuse. Great, then adjust to reality and stop believing in fairy tales. Adjust your opinion to something realistic. Open-source takes a long road to profitability, it's not that easy. And probably, because your designs are online, some lower-cost Chinese company will take it and produce it cheaper. Except, if you have build a big community around it, it will work out for them. But the chances are really small. Open-source always had an Enterprise/cloud option also to earn money. Currently, it's the only stable way ( donations are not a stable source of income) Now, we are going back in circles about what was the issue...
- geofft 8y ago
  > You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. Um, can't you also work at Red Hat or Mozilla or somewhere? Or even USDS or NASA? (Remember, OpenStack came out of a joint project between NASA and a for-profit company, and plenty of people in both organizations were paid to work on open-source full-time to make it happen....)
  - NicoJuicy 8y ago
    Red hat = IBM, so that doesn't make any sense. Firefox is probably the only one. But they can only hire a limited amount of people and their resources depend on their market share of I'm correct. A big part of that is the "default search engine setting" ( paid based on market share), so open-source still doesn't pay the bills at the end of the day. My argument is still valid.

NicoJuicy 8y ago

Privatisation and open source are 2 different things. If you are against privatisation, great. Go to a communist country and prove it. Don't forget the 996 debacle or Jack Macs response to it. You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. You know you won't do any of those both things. But probably you have an excuse. Great, then adjust to reality and stop believing in fairy tales. Adjust your opinion to something realistic. Open-source takes a long road to profitability, it's not that easy. And probably, because your designs are online, some lower-cost Chinese company will take it and produce it cheaper. Except, if you have build a big community around it, it will work out for them. But the chances are really small. Open-source always had an Enterprise/cloud option also to earn money. Currently, it's the only stable way ( donations are not a stable source of income) Now, we are going back in circles about what was the issue...

geofft 8y ago
> You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. Um, can't you also work at Red Hat or Mozilla or somewhere? Or even USDS or NASA? (Remember, OpenStack came out of a joint project between NASA and a for-profit company, and plenty of people in both organizations were paid to work on open-source full-time to make it happen....)
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  Red hat = IBM, so that doesn't make any sense. Firefox is probably the only one. But they can only hire a limited amount of people and their resources depend on their market share of I'm correct. A big part of that is the "default search engine setting" ( paid based on market share), so open-source still doesn't pay the bills at the end of the day. My argument is still valid.