4 ms·

Counter point: if bigcos are so damn stupid they avoid open source & Free software for idiotic reasons that creates space for less stupid startups who will do a

by harry8 5y ago

Counter point: if bigcos are so damn stupid they avoid open source & Free software for idiotic reasons that creates space for less stupid startups who will do and be better. Why do we need to save the rich ignorant and prejudiced from themselves? They're not worthy object of charity.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> not worthy object of charity Most people, certainly productive people, are employed by companies. Take an extremist position on who your product works for and you limit the developer pool. An agnostic competitor would be expected to replace you.
- harry8 5y ago
  It's not an extremist position to say you don't have to do much about big companies feelings about using Free software. You don't have to expend your scarce resources to make them feel comfortable. Note well here I am talking about nothing whatever of substance, this is all pure marketing. If big cos turn from Free software due to prejudice and ignorance about what it is, what it does and how to manage it, rather than riding it like Google, Facebook, Apple etc to untold riches (that were not obtainable to those companies without Free software), that's not any Free software developers' problem. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, Apache licenses have not changed. A rogue actions by any supplier comes directly under bargaining powers of suppliers in your corporate strategy risk analysis. If it happens you deal with it and you've already thought about it or you have no business in making decisions in a large company. If any big company runs away scared from Free software, bye. Google literally shot to glory when they went extra hard at using Free software when established big companies were scared. It's not a sufficient condition for their success but it was absolutely a necessary one. They don't get going if they have to pay for operating systems alone.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > I am talking about nothing whatever of substance, this is all pure marketing This is fair. Would note that one advantage to teams that do the outreach and accommodation can be support, financial and contributions. But that's speculative and not the right move for every team.
    - harry8 5y ago
      >It wasn't that long ago that using open source software required a lot of politicking inside my clients, and we could easily go back there with enough spooked executives. That's what this discussion is about. You want to monetize your Free software project? That's a very different discussion to this one, about which nobody writing Free software need care. Note also the "protestware" or whatever nonsense this is didn't hit anyone with a support contract from the developer, or am I wrong with that guess? So big co.s are using a metric ship load of code that they didn't pay a cent for and don't bother even reading once. Just hit the auto-update while paying and contributing nothing,, then claim this is the fault of Free software somehow? Yeah. Ok. Bye. The value proposition sucks for them, apparently so they'll pay someone a lot of money to solve that. Nobody else need care - unless you're sliding into that space to solve that problem for them.

by harry8 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> not worthy object of charity Most people, certainly productive people, are employed by companies. Take an extremist position on who your product works for and you limit the developer pool. An agnostic competitor would be expected to replace you.

harry8 5y ago
It's not an extremist position to say you don't have to do much about big companies feelings about using Free software. You don't have to expend your scarce resources to make them feel comfortable. Note well here I am talking about nothing whatever of substance, this is all pure marketing. If big cos turn from Free software due to prejudice and ignorance about what it is, what it does and how to manage it, rather than riding it like Google, Facebook, Apple etc to untold riches (that were not obtainable to those companies without Free software), that's not any Free software developers' problem. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, Apache licenses have not changed. A rogue actions by any supplier comes directly under bargaining powers of suppliers in your corporate strategy risk analysis. If it happens you deal with it and you've already thought about it or you have no business in making decisions in a large company. If any big company runs away scared from Free software, bye. Google literally shot to glory when they went extra hard at using Free software when established big companies were scared. It's not a sufficient condition for their success but it was absolutely a necessary one. They don't get going if they have to pay for operating systems alone.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > I am talking about nothing whatever of substance, this is all pure marketing This is fair. Would note that one advantage to teams that do the outreach and accommodation can be support, financial and contributions. But that's speculative and not the right move for every team.
  - harry8 5y ago
    >It wasn't that long ago that using open source software required a lot of politicking inside my clients, and we could easily go back there with enough spooked executives. That's what this discussion is about. You want to monetize your Free software project? That's a very different discussion to this one, about which nobody writing Free software need care. Note also the "protestware" or whatever nonsense this is didn't hit anyone with a support contract from the developer, or am I wrong with that guess? So big co.s are using a metric ship load of code that they didn't pay a cent for and don't bother even reading once. Just hit the auto-update while paying and contributing nothing,, then claim this is the fault of Free software somehow? Yeah. Ok. Bye. The value proposition sucks for them, apparently so they'll pay someone a lot of money to solve that. Nobody else need care - unless you're sliding into that space to solve that problem for them.