6 ms·

While I resonate fully with the ideals encompassed by free software, I find that the "logistics" of supporting them "in real life" are a completely different st

by idid 6y ago

While I resonate fully with the ideals encompassed by free software, I find that the "logistics" of supporting them "in real life" are a completely different story, that has little to do with the ethos behind them. This comes as a singular, personal data point, or course. There's wider context behind my trials and tribulations, but, succinctly put, starting a for profit company around my 5 year-ish old OSS project was the only way I managed to find to safeguard its continued existence and development. This road involves a lot of uneasy compromises that don't fit in the original discourse around free software. Perhaps, what I'm lacking, is a "how to get there" guide - the ideals are clear, the way to achieve them is not so much so.

wiz21c 6y ago
I'd say it's the other way around. If you work for free software, then money is secondary, will happen only if your software has so much value that you can set your own conditions. Else, you accept to work for money and then, well, you know that road...
- idid 6y ago
  Agreed. That's definitely not the scale we operate at (digitally latent, partially marginal by hn standards industry). Nevertheless, this restricts free software to only "critical" need infrastructure that has high value from the start (rather than being allowed to develop it), doesn't it?
mark_l_watson 6y ago
I agree with supporting the ideals, but hitting a barrier in features and usability. For my wife and I, our Apple Watches, AirPods, iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks are a net (I use this word purposely) that holds our digital life together and make working (she is my editor, and even in retirement I write every day for a few hours) and our digital lives easy and pleasant. On the other hand, I love Linux, have a zillion GitHub repos with open source projects I do, etc. I dream of a world in which I could use open hardware and free software, but how would something like an Apple Watch ever be open hardware and software?
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > I dream of a world in which I could use open hardware and free software, but how would something like an Apple Watch ever be open hardware and software? The PineTime is going to be released soon. Sure, it's nothing like an Apple or Android watch, but it's a significant start.
  - dTal 6y ago
    There's also the recently-released LilyGo TTGO T-Watch, which might not quite meet the most rigorous standards due to its ESP32 core but is designed from the get-go to be hackable. It doesn't seem like a stretch anymore to imagine a world of perfectly nice hardware that isn't locked down.
- rodelrod 6y ago
  Many writers are doing their job just fine without owning the whole range of Apple's current offering, nor is there a surge in global writing talent imputable to the advent of the Apple Watch. It's cool if it works for you, but those things are not necessary.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    No claim of “necessary” was made which needs refuting.
- devcpp 6y ago
  If people stopped buying the proprietary version, manufacturers would make open products. They don't really care either way, they just make a bit more money with proprietary licenses. So, the answer is: it's on you.
  - jseliger 6y ago
    I agree with supporting the ideals, but hitting a barrier in features and usability You could reverse this and say that if open-source advocates would make usable products with features on par with commercial products, people would adopt them. There's a chicken-egg problem here. People interested in these issues should read Working in Public by Eghbal, which is about open source culture and sociology. I just finished it.

by idid 6y ago

wiz21c 6y ago

I'd say it's the other way around. If you work for free software, then money is secondary, will happen only if your software has so much value that you can set your own conditions. Else, you accept to work for money and then, well, you know that road...

idid 6y ago
Agreed. That's definitely not the scale we operate at (digitally latent, partially marginal by hn standards industry). Nevertheless, this restricts free software to only "critical" need infrastructure that has high value from the start (rather than being allowed to develop it), doesn't it?

mark_l_watson 6y ago

I agree with supporting the ideals, but hitting a barrier in features and usability. For my wife and I, our Apple Watches, AirPods, iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks are a net (I use this word purposely) that holds our digital life together and make working (she is my editor, and even in retirement I write every day for a few hours) and our digital lives easy and pleasant. On the other hand, I love Linux, have a zillion GitHub repos with open source projects I do, etc. I dream of a world in which I could use open hardware and free software, but how would something like an Apple Watch ever be open hardware and software?

zozbot234 6y ago
> I dream of a world in which I could use open hardware and free software, but how would something like an Apple Watch ever be open hardware and software? The PineTime is going to be released soon. Sure, it's nothing like an Apple or Android watch, but it's a significant start.
- dTal 6y ago
  There's also the recently-released LilyGo TTGO T-Watch, which might not quite meet the most rigorous standards due to its ESP32 core but is designed from the get-go to be hackable. It doesn't seem like a stretch anymore to imagine a world of perfectly nice hardware that isn't locked down.
rodelrod 6y ago
Many writers are doing their job just fine without owning the whole range of Apple's current offering, nor is there a surge in global writing talent imputable to the advent of the Apple Watch. It's cool if it works for you, but those things are not necessary.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  No claim of “necessary” was made which needs refuting.
devcpp 6y ago
If people stopped buying the proprietary version, manufacturers would make open products. They don't really care either way, they just make a bit more money with proprietary licenses. So, the answer is: it's on you.
- jseliger 6y ago
  I agree with supporting the ideals, but hitting a barrier in features and usability You could reverse this and say that if open-source advocates would make usable products with features on par with commercial products, people would adopt them. There's a chicken-egg problem here. People interested in these issues should read Working in Public by Eghbal, which is about open source culture and sociology. I just finished it.