3 ms·

Doing open source without utilising the the code in some form of paid product is a foolish thing to do. Essentially making someone else rich for free because S

by Jonnax 7y ago

Doing open source without utilising the the code in some form of paid product is a foolish thing to do. Essentially making someone else rich for free because Software-As-A-Service is seen as the morally superior method of generating revenue. I'm sure we'll be reading many articles about some open source developer building some critical tool or library utilised by half the world. Only to live near the poverty line. Whilst companies made millions off of it.

Hamuko 7y ago
>I'm sure we'll be reading many articles about some open source developer building some critical tool or library utilised by half the world. Only to live near the poverty line. Sounds a bit like the Paul Le Roux story if you stop before the organised crime part.
reaperducer 7y ago
Doing open source without utilising the the code in some form of paid product is a foolish thing to do. The entire computer industry was founded on people writing software for the joy of writing software and giving it away for free. 90% of software available through the early 80's worked this way. We called it "public domain software." (As an aside, the earliest version of the word "hacker" that I can remember was when people would take public domain programs, "hack" out the original author strings, then redistribute the program as their own work. The definition of "hacker" has gone through about five permutations since then.)
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  I think that's revisionist thinking. I wrote software through that period; I remember it as expensive and closed. The free stuff was exceptional because it was free. Come on; Linux started in 1991; Stallman was an unknown and just beginning his ministry in the 80s. Corporate software dominated everything, including the IBM PC which was the flagship of Silicon Valley. DOS wasn't free; software for it was for sale everywhere.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    I think that's revisionist thinking. I wrote software through that period; I remember it as expensive and closed. The free stuff was exceptional because it was free. I wrote software in that period, too. So, no, it's not revisionist. Yes, closed software was very expensive. You'd pay upwards of $1,000 for a compiler, or $500 for a spreadsheet. But there were tens of thousands of public domain programs that were also available. Some of the PD libraries from organizations like TPUG were massive. No, it wasn't all good. But if you wanted higher quality, you paid the money for it. Come on; Linux started in 1991; Stallman was an unknown and just beginning his ministry in the 80s. Corporate software dominated everything, including the IBM PC which was the flagship of Silicon Valley. DOS wasn't free; software for it was for sale everywhere. I think you're thinking of a later period in time than I am. I'm not thinking x86 era. I'm thinking Z-80 era.

by Jonnax 7y ago

Hamuko 7y ago

>I'm sure we'll be reading many articles about some open source developer building some critical tool or library utilised by half the world. Only to live near the poverty line. Sounds a bit like the Paul Le Roux story if you stop before the organised crime part.

reaperducer 7y ago

Doing open source without utilising the the code in some form of paid product is a foolish thing to do. The entire computer industry was founded on people writing software for the joy of writing software and giving it away for free. 90% of software available through the early 80's worked this way. We called it "public domain software." (As an aside, the earliest version of the word "hacker" that I can remember was when people would take public domain programs, "hack" out the original author strings, then redistribute the program as their own work. The definition of "hacker" has gone through about five permutations since then.)

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
I think that's revisionist thinking. I wrote software through that period; I remember it as expensive and closed. The free stuff was exceptional because it was free. Come on; Linux started in 1991; Stallman was an unknown and just beginning his ministry in the 80s. Corporate software dominated everything, including the IBM PC which was the flagship of Silicon Valley. DOS wasn't free; software for it was for sale everywhere.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  I think that's revisionist thinking. I wrote software through that period; I remember it as expensive and closed. The free stuff was exceptional because it was free. I wrote software in that period, too. So, no, it's not revisionist. Yes, closed software was very expensive. You'd pay upwards of $1,000 for a compiler, or $500 for a spreadsheet. But there were tens of thousands of public domain programs that were also available. Some of the PD libraries from organizations like TPUG were massive. No, it wasn't all good. But if you wanted higher quality, you paid the money for it. Come on; Linux started in 1991; Stallman was an unknown and just beginning his ministry in the 80s. Corporate software dominated everything, including the IBM PC which was the flagship of Silicon Valley. DOS wasn't free; software for it was for sale everywhere. I think you're thinking of a later period in time than I am. I'm not thinking x86 era. I'm thinking Z-80 era.