3 ms·

Ideological commitments like this are just blinding. People convince themselves of something and literally can no longer see things right in front of them. > f

by _jal 6y ago

Ideological commitments like this are just blinding. People convince themselves of something and literally can no longer see things right in front of them. > free software projects are run by lone developers and lack resources I'm sure nonsense like this gets sage nods when presented in front of of nontechnical executives, and there are indeed projects this describes. It doesn't describe RedHat, Ubuntu, Postgres, the Linux kernel, any number of Apache Foundation projects... it is either ignorant or dishonest cherry-picking. > It's a great idea in the wrong economic system. Economics is a useful domain of study, but studying economics does bad things to a certain kind of person.

Barrin92 6y ago
The Linux kernel does not capture the market value that it provides to its users, or Torvalds net worth would look more like Gates. Neither does Ubuntu or Postgres, and Red Hat has commercialised services rather than software. In your reflexive attack on economics you seem to have misunderstood my point. I think free software is good, it's also on an organisational level successful, but it does not capture its own value, that much is fairly obvious, which answers the question of the author 'why is free software not mainstream?'
- _jal 6y ago
  'Reflexive' is a bizarre term to use, but I guess you're just looking for a generic devaluing term. I heard your point loud and clear, it is hardly subtle, or novel. But in your rush to tell me how wrong I am, you missed mine, which is that you can't see what is in front of your face. Free software is mainstream. It hasn't supplanted all other development models, and it hasn't conquered every market, but it doesn't need to. The fantasists/propagandists claiming it is fringy have yet to square that view with, say, the reality that stodgy F100 insurance companies migrated their LOB workloads to it years ago. The fact that it is mainstream means that the model that lead to this conclusion needs modification.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  But some free software is mainstream. Just look at the Linux kernel. You don't have to necessarily 'capture value' in the capitalist/market sense to be successful.

by _jal 6y ago

Barrin92 6y ago

The Linux kernel does not capture the market value that it provides to its users, or Torvalds net worth would look more like Gates. Neither does Ubuntu or Postgres, and Red Hat has commercialised services rather than software. In your reflexive attack on economics you seem to have misunderstood my point. I think free software is good, it's also on an organisational level successful, but it does not capture its own value, that much is fairly obvious, which answers the question of the author 'why is free software not mainstream?'

_jal 6y ago
'Reflexive' is a bizarre term to use, but I guess you're just looking for a generic devaluing term. I heard your point loud and clear, it is hardly subtle, or novel. But in your rush to tell me how wrong I am, you missed mine, which is that you can't see what is in front of your face. Free software is mainstream. It hasn't supplanted all other development models, and it hasn't conquered every market, but it doesn't need to. The fantasists/propagandists claiming it is fringy have yet to square that view with, say, the reality that stodgy F100 insurance companies migrated their LOB workloads to it years ago. The fact that it is mainstream means that the model that lead to this conclusion needs modification.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
But some free software is mainstream. Just look at the Linux kernel. You don't have to necessarily 'capture value' in the capitalist/market sense to be successful.