4 ms·

"abundance of F/OSS has pushed us towards SaaS as one of the few places left to make a living from pure software dev, and the oligopolies arising out of it. Wh

"abundance of F/OSS has pushed us towards SaaS as one of the few places left to make a living from pure software dev, and the oligopolies arising out of it. What about Linux (Android) being used as the prime spyware vector, and Linux being used for cloud lock-in (k8s et al)?" It's not like closed-source software would have prevented any of this.

pjmlp 5y ago
People actually pay for closed source software, even if piracy might happen. SaaS is the only way left to force most people to actually pay for the FOSS stuff they leach.
- mpol 5y ago
  I don't think "force" is the right word here. More that it's an offer companies can make and customers can choose. Free software and free data are not always a concern of users, lock-in might not be the best choice long-term, but they are not being forced in any way afaik. (edit: initially I mean, after the lock-in there is force of course.)
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  People actually pay for open source software too. Take a look at Ardour for an example. Red Hat too.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Indeed, however stuff like CentOS prove how people go out of their way to avoid paying, and how they get pissed off when that option goes away. I should also note that nowadays Red-Hat belongs to IBM, so there are other forms of funding beyond support contracts for Red-Hat enterprise.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      CentOS was popular, but Red Hat still made billions of dollars in revenue.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Not enough, hence why it was acquired and eventually killed, regardless of how Red-Hat might justify their decision.
        prmoustache 5y ago
        Care to explain which was killed? Neither centos nor redhat.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        CentOS, have you missed the news? Yeah there is CentOS Stream now, but that isn't what freeloaders want.
        prmoustache 5y ago
        > CentOS, have you missed the news? Alternatives popped up literally days after the annoumcement of centos stream. We got back to original point. If you know the history of rhel and its clones, you surely know they used to be tenth of projects similar to centos, some much more active/reactive. The redhat funding of centos as a perfect rhel clone is more a parenthesis in history than anything. So in the end freeloaders still get exactly what they want. > Yeah there is CentOS Stream now, but that isn't what freeloaders want. I would say that isn't what some freeloaders think they want. All the feedback I get from people deciding to stick to centos stream and trying it out before a potential switch to something else has bern mostly the same: a lot of fuss for nothing, their life hasn't changed and centos is still meeting their needs.
- Macha 5y ago
  However, as has been a point of discussion here for the last several years, the SaaS services themselves are often as much "leeches" as the users when it comes to open source.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Might happen, however my point was about the SaaS that are from the authors themselves.
    - Macha 5y ago
      Ah, in the case of developer originated SaaS, then sure, doing a SaaS offering rather than donationware might lead to more income for the developer, but I don't think that free software is alone in this - plenty of proprietary software that would once have had fixed boxed releases is now subscription or SaaS based too. Recurring income is a stronger business model, nobody's denying that, but that doesn't mean it's an improvement for the user or that those producing software with a goal of financial gain would have just released standalone open source software if only free software licenses had been more sympathetic to their needs. Rather, I think if SaaS did not exist, if their first goal is revenue, many of these groups would have just released straight up proprietary software.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        When users try to make a living as developers, income becomes something to worry about.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Why should people pay for FOSS? Isn't entire point it being free, developed for personal use and shared?
  - jdbernard 5y ago
    If people don't pay for FOSS, how do you expect developers who develop FOSS to feed their families? The "free" in "Free and Open Source Software" is free as in speech, not free as in beer. We'd like to think that decision to charge or not charge for the product is orthogonal to the decision to make the source code available. In practice there is some interrelation. But FOSS was never "you can't charge for it."
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Do it as hobby in their free time? Maybe work in some other field producing actual physical things during day and then in evenings spend hour or two tinkering with free software? Just like any hobbying artist?
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Like a street performer trying to make it to the end of the month rather.

pjmlp 5y ago

People actually pay for closed source software, even if piracy might happen. SaaS is the only way left to force most people to actually pay for the FOSS stuff they leach.

mpol 5y ago
I don't think "force" is the right word here. More that it's an offer companies can make and customers can choose. Free software and free data are not always a concern of users, lock-in might not be the best choice long-term, but they are not being forced in any way afaik. (edit: initially I mean, after the lock-in there is force of course.)
pmoriarty 5y ago
People actually pay for open source software too. Take a look at Ardour for an example. Red Hat too.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Indeed, however stuff like CentOS prove how people go out of their way to avoid paying, and how they get pissed off when that option goes away. I should also note that nowadays Red-Hat belongs to IBM, so there are other forms of funding beyond support contracts for Red-Hat enterprise.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    CentOS was popular, but Red Hat still made billions of dollars in revenue.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Not enough, hence why it was acquired and eventually killed, regardless of how Red-Hat might justify their decision.
      - prmoustache 5y ago
        Care to explain which was killed? Neither centos nor redhat.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        CentOS, have you missed the news? Yeah there is CentOS Stream now, but that isn't what freeloaders want.
        prmoustache 5y ago
        > CentOS, have you missed the news? Alternatives popped up literally days after the annoumcement of centos stream. We got back to original point. If you know the history of rhel and its clones, you surely know they used to be tenth of projects similar to centos, some much more active/reactive. The redhat funding of centos as a perfect rhel clone is more a parenthesis in history than anything. So in the end freeloaders still get exactly what they want. > Yeah there is CentOS Stream now, but that isn't what freeloaders want. I would say that isn't what some freeloaders think they want. All the feedback I get from people deciding to stick to centos stream and trying it out before a potential switch to something else has bern mostly the same: a lot of fuss for nothing, their life hasn't changed and centos is still meeting their needs.
Macha 5y ago
However, as has been a point of discussion here for the last several years, the SaaS services themselves are often as much "leeches" as the users when it comes to open source.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Might happen, however my point was about the SaaS that are from the authors themselves.
  - Macha 5y ago
    Ah, in the case of developer originated SaaS, then sure, doing a SaaS offering rather than donationware might lead to more income for the developer, but I don't think that free software is alone in this - plenty of proprietary software that would once have had fixed boxed releases is now subscription or SaaS based too. Recurring income is a stronger business model, nobody's denying that, but that doesn't mean it's an improvement for the user or that those producing software with a goal of financial gain would have just released standalone open source software if only free software licenses had been more sympathetic to their needs. Rather, I think if SaaS did not exist, if their first goal is revenue, many of these groups would have just released straight up proprietary software.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      When users try to make a living as developers, income becomes something to worry about.
Ekaros 5y ago
Why should people pay for FOSS? Isn't entire point it being free, developed for personal use and shared?
- jdbernard 5y ago
  If people don't pay for FOSS, how do you expect developers who develop FOSS to feed their families? The "free" in "Free and Open Source Software" is free as in speech, not free as in beer. We'd like to think that decision to charge or not charge for the product is orthogonal to the decision to make the source code available. In practice there is some interrelation. But FOSS was never "you can't charge for it."
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Do it as hobby in their free time? Maybe work in some other field producing actual physical things during day and then in evenings spend hour or two tinkering with free software? Just like any hobbying artist?
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Like a street performer trying to make it to the end of the month rather.