3 ms·
It explains it in the post. What did you not get? > In order for software to be comfy, the people who have the final say over what does and doesn't go into it
by guerrilla 4y ago
It explains it in the post. What did you not get?
> In order for software to be comfy, the people who have the final say over what does and doesn't go into it shouldn't be beholden to a for-profit entity.
> But that entity itself should be actually a community focus, and not just a thin facade around one or two megacorporations that just dictate what happens
However good your for-profit software is, it can't be those things, so it's not "cozy."
> I think of this as the 'no VS Code' clause: no matter how good VS Code is, I refuse to use it because it's fundamentally a Microsoft product and I want my text editor to actually be FOSS, dammit.
- yCombLinks 4y agoYes, the post says those things, but those things have absolutely zero to do with whether or not a piece of software feels good to use. I have lots of paid software that's lightyears ahead of whatever is available for free. If that doesn't fit the definition of cozy, oh well. I'll stick with the software that makes my life better for a few dollars a year.
- dleslie 4y agoFor non-programmers, non-profit open source software is at least as opaque and inaccessible as for-profit software. At least with for-profit there is some monetary incentive to support and build the software, even when doing so is dull and tedious or when the users have uninteresting or troublesome asks. For many people there's nothing cozy about non-profit software; rather, it teeters on an abyss of frustration and suffering wrought of poor support and indifferent developer goals. And before it's stated, paying a contractor to modify open source software is just another for-profit model.
- antonvs 4y ago> so it’s not “cozy” It doesn’t fit this one person’s proposed definition of cozy software. Not quite the same thing.