3 ms·

Your desire to make money and this philosophy are orthogonal. They can co-exist, never interacting with each other. Go, be free, make money.

api 6y ago
So that means if I need to make money I should not write free software. The vast majority of people must make a living. So that means free software is only for people with trust funds? This also implies that there will be almost no usable free software, so freedom is only for nerds. The general public gets proprietary malware that spies on them and locks them in, because that is where all the money is by design. There is no money in giving people freedom. I am simply pointing out that your nice utopian ideals are helping create a dystopia. That was not intended, but results matter more than intentions.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  No, you can make money writing free software, but you can also make money not writing free software. Again, orthogonal to the philosophy.
- brazzy 6y ago
  The two are not exclusive. You can make money writing non-free software (or doing something else entirely) and write free software as a hobby. A more interesting question is how it is then possible to create free software on the scale that is nowadays expected.
  - api 6y ago
    ... which means freedom is only for nerds or people who don't have to work and therefore have time to manually configure and maintain things? The general public gets lock-in and surveillanceware. This is structurally elitist and classist and is AFAIK the opposite of what is intended. The current model doesn't work... unless you only want freedom for nerds and the independently wealthy. Edit: wanted to throw in one more point on usability: Lets say my time is billed at about $50/month, which is low for a software engineer. Now lets say a Linux desktop/laptop requires 5 hours of system admin time per month to troubleshoot drivers, upgrades, etc. That means a Linux desktop/laptop costs $250/month. For that price I could buy a new Mac every 10-12 months. I have a Mac right now and spend less than 30 minutes per month futzing around with it, so it's far cheaper. A lot of the people who don't get this are young people who are middle class or above (in the developed world) and who therefore have an abundance of free time. Telling busier, poorer, or older people with families they should set up their own servers or run their own Linux systems is sort of a "why do they not eat cake?" attitude. This neglects the structural profession elitism here-- that only people who know how to admin Unix-type systems should have freedom or privacy.
    - sounds 6y ago
      Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I believe these different ideologies can coexist. You can call me "nerds or people who don't have the work," I'll keep writing the free software and making the money. I'm also free to continue to promote my ideology. No need for name calling.
    - rpdillon 6y ago
      You mentioned upthread that Free software is helping create a dystopia, and you mention above that Free software is more usable for people that have more resources. Do you have a proposal to address these issues? I ask because I see that you're not happy with things as they are, but I'm not sure what GNU can do to address your concerns.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      >Lets say my time is billed at about $50/month, which is low for a software engineer. Now lets say a Linux desktop/laptop requires 5 hours of system admin time per month to troubleshoot drivers, upgrades, etc. That means a Linux desktop/laptop costs $250/month. For that price I could buy a new Mac every 10-12 months. I have a Mac right now and spend less than 30 minutes per month futzing around with it, so it's far cheaper. Or you can just buy from a GNU and/or Linux vendor that supports their own hardware and distro and get the same benefits. (System76, Purism, etc) >Telling busier, poorer, or older people with families they should set up their own servers or run their own Linux systems is sort of a "why do they not eat cake?" attitude. Why? When it comes to servers the actual alternative there is either telling them to buy a Windows server, or start paying cloud providers, neither of which really have a lower money/time investment in all cases when you get into it. This is assuming that the reason someone wants to have their own server is to have a home business. (And if you're on the cloud there's a good chance you'll end up running Linux there anyway)
    - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
      > The general public gets lock-in and surveillanceware. This is structurally elitist and classist and is AFAIK the opposite of what is intended. You (and the other replies) are missing the main point of reciprocal/protective licenses like GPL: To pass down freedom (including freedom FROM surveillance) to end users. Avoid lock-in and "tivoization". You are probably thinking about weak/non-protective licenses. They are commonly used on locked-down systems like Android or cloud/SaaS. Various developers and companies complained that that form of FLOSS has been coopted into unpaid labor for FAANGs.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I've spent most of my career writing free software, and I pay a mortgage in one of the highest-cost-of-living cities in the world. Go figure.
- vngzs 6y ago
  If you want to write free software for money, a good choice would be working for a company like Red Hat (though they are gradually getting IBM-ified as time goes on). If you work for an employer whose income depends on the existence of high-quality free software, they will pay you to work on free software.

api 6y ago

So that means if I need to make money I should not write free software. The vast majority of people must make a living. So that means free software is only for people with trust funds? This also implies that there will be almost no usable free software, so freedom is only for nerds. The general public gets proprietary malware that spies on them and locks them in, because that is where all the money is by design. There is no money in giving people freedom. I am simply pointing out that your nice utopian ideals are helping create a dystopia. That was not intended, but results matter more than intentions.

fartcannon 6y ago
No, you can make money writing free software, but you can also make money not writing free software. Again, orthogonal to the philosophy.
brazzy 6y ago
The two are not exclusive. You can make money writing non-free software (or doing something else entirely) and write free software as a hobby. A more interesting question is how it is then possible to create free software on the scale that is nowadays expected.
- api 6y ago
  ... which means freedom is only for nerds or people who don't have to work and therefore have time to manually configure and maintain things? The general public gets lock-in and surveillanceware. This is structurally elitist and classist and is AFAIK the opposite of what is intended. The current model doesn't work... unless you only want freedom for nerds and the independently wealthy. Edit: wanted to throw in one more point on usability: Lets say my time is billed at about $50/month, which is low for a software engineer. Now lets say a Linux desktop/laptop requires 5 hours of system admin time per month to troubleshoot drivers, upgrades, etc. That means a Linux desktop/laptop costs $250/month. For that price I could buy a new Mac every 10-12 months. I have a Mac right now and spend less than 30 minutes per month futzing around with it, so it's far cheaper. A lot of the people who don't get this are young people who are middle class or above (in the developed world) and who therefore have an abundance of free time. Telling busier, poorer, or older people with families they should set up their own servers or run their own Linux systems is sort of a "why do they not eat cake?" attitude. This neglects the structural profession elitism here-- that only people who know how to admin Unix-type systems should have freedom or privacy.
  - sounds 6y ago
    Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I believe these different ideologies can coexist. You can call me "nerds or people who don't have the work," I'll keep writing the free software and making the money. I'm also free to continue to promote my ideology. No need for name calling.
  - rpdillon 6y ago
    You mentioned upthread that Free software is helping create a dystopia, and you mention above that Free software is more usable for people that have more resources. Do you have a proposal to address these issues? I ask because I see that you're not happy with things as they are, but I'm not sure what GNU can do to address your concerns.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    >Lets say my time is billed at about $50/month, which is low for a software engineer. Now lets say a Linux desktop/laptop requires 5 hours of system admin time per month to troubleshoot drivers, upgrades, etc. That means a Linux desktop/laptop costs $250/month. For that price I could buy a new Mac every 10-12 months. I have a Mac right now and spend less than 30 minutes per month futzing around with it, so it's far cheaper. Or you can just buy from a GNU and/or Linux vendor that supports their own hardware and distro and get the same benefits. (System76, Purism, etc) >Telling busier, poorer, or older people with families they should set up their own servers or run their own Linux systems is sort of a "why do they not eat cake?" attitude. Why? When it comes to servers the actual alternative there is either telling them to buy a Windows server, or start paying cloud providers, neither of which really have a lower money/time investment in all cases when you get into it. This is assuming that the reason someone wants to have their own server is to have a home business. (And if you're on the cloud there's a good chance you'll end up running Linux there anyway)
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > The general public gets lock-in and surveillanceware. This is structurally elitist and classist and is AFAIK the opposite of what is intended. You (and the other replies) are missing the main point of reciprocal/protective licenses like GPL: To pass down freedom (including freedom FROM surveillance) to end users. Avoid lock-in and "tivoization". You are probably thinking about weak/non-protective licenses. They are commonly used on locked-down systems like Android or cloud/SaaS. Various developers and companies complained that that form of FLOSS has been coopted into unpaid labor for FAANGs.
woofie11 6y ago
I've spent most of my career writing free software, and I pay a mortgage in one of the highest-cost-of-living cities in the world. Go figure.
vngzs 6y ago
If you want to write free software for money, a good choice would be working for a company like Red Hat (though they are gradually getting IBM-ified as time goes on). If you work for an employer whose income depends on the existence of high-quality free software, they will pay you to work on free software.