4 ms·

The whole rant against "free" software is just a straw man--the movement he decries as a cult against charging for software isn't about that at all. The whole i

by tikhonj 15y ago

The whole rant against "free" software is just a straw man--the movement he decries as a cult against charging for software isn't about that at all. The whole idea lies in freedom: the "free as in beer" "free" is the Java to the movements JavaScript. The name is an unfortunate artifact of the English language. Additionally, it's pretty clearly not an outright lie: you only have to look at the successful ecosystem of free/open source software, and the companies which live on it, to see that it does work. Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but it is no lie.

kiba 15y ago
I'll buy freedom. I buy an arudino and android, and a thing-o-matic though I couldn't afford a thing-o-matic on my earning right now. When push come to shove, I'll probably stays on android even if the world around me all use iphone just like I use archlinux everyday. Granted, I am in the minority.
- Kliment 15y ago
  Go for a reprap instead. We're much more open-dev and organic (organic is the nicer way of saying chaotic and disorganized I guess). Which continent are you on?
uiri 15y ago
I think it is just because the rant is in response to a strawman who is asking the question. They haven't really looked into free software as an alternative to proprietary software and it really is a shift in thinking about software. It is exactly the kind of response I'd expect from someone who makes their living off of proprietary software and gets ``attacked'' by the RMSes of the world. It certainly seems like a lie if you use Microsoft Windows and iOS day-in and day-out and account for the free software which does exist by pointing out companies with alternative business models (Red Hat's support business, Google's search/advertising, etc). Then the only unexplained pieces left are those which are run by community (Debian, Apache, etc) and that can be handwaved away by people who donate to those projects or the developers have full-time ``real'' jobs which involves proprietary software. If one explains the existence of free software to themselves in this manner, than all free software requires the proprietary software side to pay developers and thus it is a myth in the sense that one can't have software without some level of proprietary software in the world. These are [likely] inaccurate explanations, but somewhat similar to the author's POV as far as I can tell. If English didn't have this silly artifact, then the response would be about ridiculing how essentially zero people who use their apps would have any use for the source code so it is ok to keep it from them. Regardless, the point of free software is lost and the developer just doesn't want to be pestered by the RMSes of the world. Similar to how the developer doesn't want to be pestered by people who like to share software and think it does no harm. And not to be pestered by people who assume that s/he is rolling around in money.
- roel_v 15y ago
  How then do you suggest this guy to make money? 'Sell support' on his 2$ weather app that nobody would even look at if it was so hard to use that users would need support? Put ads in it and fight the Adblocker crowd? Find a rich benefactor who wants to 'sponsor' him? I'm running out of options here, what do you suggest?
  - tikhonj 15y ago
    To be entirely fair, he isn't exactly making money hand over fist now either. It seems assuming that somebody should make money off something as trivial as a weather app isn't necessarily warranted. However, there is actually a way he could have made money: if somebody wanted a weather app, they could have hired him to write it. This could plausibly either be a carrier seeking to make their phone more attractive or whatever service provides the weather data seeking to make it more accessible. On the one hand, the amount he could possibly make from something like this is limited; on the other hand, the risk is also limited. The problem with your argument is that you're starting with the assumption that a weather app--particularly one which, I assume, does not get its own data--should be worth a significant amount of money. Just because it would not necessarily be practical to sell the app does not me it would be impractical to make a living as a programmer.
    - brc 15y ago
      No, the weather app uses data from publicly funded sources. In essence, you're paying for the convenience and the UI over the free version of the same data on the internet. That's valuable, up to a certain point, but not $50 valuable. In this instance, I know, because I have that same app.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      So let me summarize: the guy says not all software should be free and that he wants to make money, you dismiss it with 'oh he's just stuck in old ways of thinking and he should find other ways to make money', I ask how, and then you say maybe he just shouldn't make money at all? That's just putting the cart before the horse - starting at a fundamentalist position and coming to conclusions that are completely out of whack with reality. Nobody will pay the 15k or whatever it costs to have a custom app developed just for a weather app, even if people find it useful. So, the traditional (and common sense) model was to split the costs over all people who would be interested in such an app. The developer would take the risk, develop and market it, and people would pay for it; and once the development costs were covered, the profit was for the developer. Simple and, if I may say, quite reasonable. But now you come and start with an assumption that the app should be free, then the business becomes untenable and the app won't be developed in the first place, and you say that maybe that's how it's supposed to be? How does that make sense?
king_magic 15y ago
you only have to look at the successful ecosystem of free/open source software I'm not going to say that the free/open source software ecosystem is not successful, but I will say it is orders of magnitude less successful that commercial software.

by tikhonj 15y ago

kiba 15y ago

I'll buy freedom. I buy an arudino and android, and a thing-o-matic though I couldn't afford a thing-o-matic on my earning right now. When push come to shove, I'll probably stays on android even if the world around me all use iphone just like I use archlinux everyday. Granted, I am in the minority.

Kliment 15y ago
Go for a reprap instead. We're much more open-dev and organic (organic is the nicer way of saying chaotic and disorganized I guess). Which continent are you on?

uiri 15y ago

I think it is just because the rant is in response to a strawman who is asking the question. They haven't really looked into free software as an alternative to proprietary software and it really is a shift in thinking about software. It is exactly the kind of response I'd expect from someone who makes their living off of proprietary software and gets ``attacked'' by the RMSes of the world. It certainly seems like a lie if you use Microsoft Windows and iOS day-in and day-out and account for the free software which does exist by pointing out companies with alternative business models (Red Hat's support business, Google's search/advertising, etc). Then the only unexplained pieces left are those which are run by community (Debian, Apache, etc) and that can be handwaved away by people who donate to those projects or the developers have full-time ``real'' jobs which involves proprietary software. If one explains the existence of free software to themselves in this manner, than all free software requires the proprietary software side to pay developers and thus it is a myth in the sense that one can't have software without some level of proprietary software in the world. These are [likely] inaccurate explanations, but somewhat similar to the author's POV as far as I can tell. If English didn't have this silly artifact, then the response would be about ridiculing how essentially zero people who use their apps would have any use for the source code so it is ok to keep it from them. Regardless, the point of free software is lost and the developer just doesn't want to be pestered by the RMSes of the world. Similar to how the developer doesn't want to be pestered by people who like to share software and think it does no harm. And not to be pestered by people who assume that s/he is rolling around in money.

roel_v 15y ago
How then do you suggest this guy to make money? 'Sell support' on his 2$ weather app that nobody would even look at if it was so hard to use that users would need support? Put ads in it and fight the Adblocker crowd? Find a rich benefactor who wants to 'sponsor' him? I'm running out of options here, what do you suggest?
- tikhonj 15y ago
  To be entirely fair, he isn't exactly making money hand over fist now either. It seems assuming that somebody should make money off something as trivial as a weather app isn't necessarily warranted. However, there is actually a way he could have made money: if somebody wanted a weather app, they could have hired him to write it. This could plausibly either be a carrier seeking to make their phone more attractive or whatever service provides the weather data seeking to make it more accessible. On the one hand, the amount he could possibly make from something like this is limited; on the other hand, the risk is also limited. The problem with your argument is that you're starting with the assumption that a weather app--particularly one which, I assume, does not get its own data--should be worth a significant amount of money. Just because it would not necessarily be practical to sell the app does not me it would be impractical to make a living as a programmer.
  - brc 15y ago
    No, the weather app uses data from publicly funded sources. In essence, you're paying for the convenience and the UI over the free version of the same data on the internet. That's valuable, up to a certain point, but not $50 valuable. In this instance, I know, because I have that same app.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    So let me summarize: the guy says not all software should be free and that he wants to make money, you dismiss it with 'oh he's just stuck in old ways of thinking and he should find other ways to make money', I ask how, and then you say maybe he just shouldn't make money at all? That's just putting the cart before the horse - starting at a fundamentalist position and coming to conclusions that are completely out of whack with reality. Nobody will pay the 15k or whatever it costs to have a custom app developed just for a weather app, even if people find it useful. So, the traditional (and common sense) model was to split the costs over all people who would be interested in such an app. The developer would take the risk, develop and market it, and people would pay for it; and once the development costs were covered, the profit was for the developer. Simple and, if I may say, quite reasonable. But now you come and start with an assumption that the app should be free, then the business becomes untenable and the app won't be developed in the first place, and you say that maybe that's how it's supposed to be? How does that make sense?

king_magic 15y ago

you only have to look at the successful ecosystem of free/open source software I'm not going to say that the free/open source software ecosystem is not successful, but I will say it is orders of magnitude less successful that commercial software.