5 ms·
As long as you're okay with it, there's nothing wrong with selling out dude. Everyone has to make a living. It's understandable.
by lawrenceyan 7y ago
As long as you're okay with it, there's nothing wrong with selling out dude. Everyone has to make a living. It's understandable.
- girvo 7y agoHow is it “selling out”? That particular phrase has a heap of nasty connotations along with it.
- lawrenceyan 7y agoWhat would you prefer it be called instead?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- moultano 7y agoMaybe just selling?
- michaelmrose 7y agoWhy dress it up to spare people's feelings?
- unityByFreedom 7y agoSaying "sell out" is editorializing. You can't say what will happen in the future. Plenty of for-profit companies provide services people want while keeping founders happy. You only hear about the bad ones.
- krageon 7y agoIt's okay for you to trust people when you don't actively hear about them being bad, just as it is okay for other people to take what they see elsewhere and think it informs the behaviour of cases they see as related.
- unityByFreedom 7y agoHuh? Are you trying to say it's okay to have an opinion? I agree, and that's what editorials are for, opinions. Unfortunately, social media does not distinguish between editorials and fact-based journalism.
- labster 7y agoIt's selling out because it was a nonprofit project, and now the Man owns it, and will try to monetize it. This is textbook selling out. At some point, MrAlex94 will be made to compromise his principles. It might not be a big deal, it might even be good for users. But buying a product means that the company payed for control -- that's what property is. If System1 were fine with him developing it without their control, they would have just given him some money and said hey, do your own thing. But when you sell out, you give up control to The Man in exchange for that sweet, sweet cash. And, to be fair, cash has a lot of utility.
- MrAlex94 7y ago> It's selling out because it was a nonprofit project, and now the Man owns it, and will try to monetize it. This is textbook selling out. I don't know if anyone is reading these comments anymore, but I'd like to point out that Waterfox has never been non-profit and even received investment (and similar criticism, which turned out to be unwarranted) in 2014. > At some point, MrAlex94 will be made to compromise his principles. People said the same in 2014, and 6 years on I never did. I'd hope that warrants some level of trust.
- ngold 7y agoIt honestly shocks me that more private no strings attached funding has not grown out of the trillions of dollar tech money made over the past couple of decades. If I had a billion I would throw money at the umatrix guy and ask nicely for a umatrix/origin browser. Make everyones life a little simpler.
- CameronNemo 7y agoUnrelated, but I would be very happy to see umatrix settings be synced across Firefox instances.
- unityByFreedom 7y agoGiving up control isn't easy, particularly when it's your money that's invested. That said, successful investors such as Y-Combinator do invest in people rather than a particular idea. I imagine VCs want to own the rights so they can pull the plug if something unexpected happens, like a founder has a major life event or something. Whether or not they limit themselves to only pulling strings in the most dire circumstances is another question.