5 ms·

FLOSS sadly does not solve my problem fully. I'm happy to pay for somebody to maintain the infrastructure and keep the service I'm using up to date on security

FLOSS sadly does not solve my problem fully. I'm happy to pay for somebody to maintain the infrastructure and keep the service I'm using up to date on security issues. However if the maintainer happen to stop maintaining the service, I could setup the infrastructure and maintain it by myself with some learning, but that would take up more time I need to earn the money I'm paying to somebody else, who already done the groundwork and has the knowledge about the service. Also the service is worth $5-10 per month, but does not have enough value to worth the hassle of setting up the whole self hosted infra behind it and maintain it by myself. I'm not sure why, but people recommending FLOSS as a solution tends to forget about the additional cost to setup and maintain infrastructure and software and a simple build pipeline (even if it's just a bash script, rsyncing the code to a server) when mentioning you could self-host it if they shutdown the service. This is the "slightly annoying not to have this service, but not annoying enough to bother to replicate it even if I could" situation for me.

iso1210 6y ago
Free software isn't about money, it's about freedom. You value the freedom enough to complain when it's trodden on, but not enough to do the work required to continue to be free. Freedom has a price.
- comboy 6y ago
  No. When you have to maintain the infrastructure you're a slave. Freedom is when I pay somebody to do it for me and move it elsewhere if I don't like it. I'm also tired of the trend of recommending FOSS when somebody is looking for a service. For personal solutions it works only if you are valuing your time really low or if you are having a lot of fun playing with it. Frankly, if you think setting up your own FOSS is often a good solution you haven't listened to your advice enough times. It works if you have a few things. But if you try to do it with everything you will just give up after a few years and 50 things set up this way, or you will spend considerate amount of time on maintenance (which is fine as long that's what you want to do with your life).
  - ffdjjjffjj 6y ago
    Don’t you think it’s a little hyperbolic to compare the ownership of human beings to running some software on your computer?
    - comboy 6y ago
      I agree, but it seems most practical to reply using the same framework that parent is using.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    They were recommended FLOSS because they were histrionic about data ownership in a situation where the data was already out the door. It’s a way of presenting them with the fact that nothing reasonable can make them happy.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      Well, a company/product with steady service that wasn't created to be quickly sold, e.g. Basecamp, would make them happy...
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    > Freedom is when I pay somebody to do it for me and move it elsewhere if I don't like it. But you inherently have less control over the situation when you pick this option. Sure, it's convenient to pay someone else to manage the service, but you expose yourself to the acquisition situation that this user did. Also, moving to another provider isn't usually an easy thing to do, it's not like deciding to shop at Costco instead of Wal-mart today. Beyond the most trivial of services, you usually pay a fairly hefty technical migration cost to move to another provider. Most companies can't just wake up on a Monday and decide to switch from AWS to GCP or another cloud provider. I guess "Freedom" can mean different things to different people, but when you're at the mercy of a vendor like this, you're inherently less free than you would be if you ran your own service because you can't control what they do.
  - iso1210 6y ago
- krageon 6y ago
  I'm sure you mean well but by assuming this combative stance (it's not just you, I think this ideological stance fairly represents most of the FOSS space) you're ensuring people who might have gotten on board will absolutely never get on board. There's having principles and there's having enough people skills to recognise you don't need to be rude about them, they can go together and FOSS deserves that they do.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Freedom has a price. Sure, and like everything else that has a price has to go through an cost benefit and an opportunity cost analysis. Just because it "has a price" doesn't mean it's always worth it...

iso1210 6y ago

Free software isn't about money, it's about freedom. You value the freedom enough to complain when it's trodden on, but not enough to do the work required to continue to be free. Freedom has a price.

comboy 6y ago
No. When you have to maintain the infrastructure you're a slave. Freedom is when I pay somebody to do it for me and move it elsewhere if I don't like it. I'm also tired of the trend of recommending FOSS when somebody is looking for a service. For personal solutions it works only if you are valuing your time really low or if you are having a lot of fun playing with it. Frankly, if you think setting up your own FOSS is often a good solution you haven't listened to your advice enough times. It works if you have a few things. But if you try to do it with everything you will just give up after a few years and 50 things set up this way, or you will spend considerate amount of time on maintenance (which is fine as long that's what you want to do with your life).
- ffdjjjffjj 6y ago
  Don’t you think it’s a little hyperbolic to compare the ownership of human beings to running some software on your computer?
  - comboy 6y ago
    I agree, but it seems most practical to reply using the same framework that parent is using.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  They were recommended FLOSS because they were histrionic about data ownership in a situation where the data was already out the door. It’s a way of presenting them with the fact that nothing reasonable can make them happy.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Well, a company/product with steady service that wasn't created to be quickly sold, e.g. Basecamp, would make them happy...
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > Freedom is when I pay somebody to do it for me and move it elsewhere if I don't like it. But you inherently have less control over the situation when you pick this option. Sure, it's convenient to pay someone else to manage the service, but you expose yourself to the acquisition situation that this user did. Also, moving to another provider isn't usually an easy thing to do, it's not like deciding to shop at Costco instead of Wal-mart today. Beyond the most trivial of services, you usually pay a fairly hefty technical migration cost to move to another provider. Most companies can't just wake up on a Monday and decide to switch from AWS to GCP or another cloud provider. I guess "Freedom" can mean different things to different people, but when you're at the mercy of a vendor like this, you're inherently less free than you would be if you ran your own service because you can't control what they do.
- iso1210 6y ago
krageon 6y ago
I'm sure you mean well but by assuming this combative stance (it's not just you, I think this ideological stance fairly represents most of the FOSS space) you're ensuring people who might have gotten on board will absolutely never get on board. There's having principles and there's having enough people skills to recognise you don't need to be rude about them, they can go together and FOSS deserves that they do.
coldtea 6y ago
>Freedom has a price. Sure, and like everything else that has a price has to go through an cost benefit and an opportunity cost analysis. Just because it "has a price" doesn't mean it's always worth it...