34 ms·

> more a shame their funding model was very publicly debunked It wasn't just that, both the founders were very big socialist/communist people who didn't really

> more a shame their funding model was very publicly debunked It wasn't just that, both the founders were very big socialist/communist people who didn't really understand how to run a business. They still don't. Elementary OS turned down numerous funding opportunities, numerous partnership opportunities. They made a really really great OS. But the business aspect was just atrocious. The "Pay what you want" model could have worked for their store. But just having a store in the beginning they didn't want one and then they pivoted to having one way late. There was big internal strife in the eOS Community amongst the developers for years, and very little conflict resolution on their part. I wouldn't say they're an example of a failed funding model. Rather, I'd say they're an example of people who have amazing talent and ideas, but refused business help and refused to admit their failures.

aroman 3y ago
It’s not that they didn’t understand how to run a business… their refusal to accept “business help” was not because of inexperience or incompetence but because they didn’t believe it was compatible with their strongly idealistic perspective on business/capitalism/the world. I’m not sure they’re wrong.
- groby_b 3y ago
  Here's the thing: You function in your environment, and you need your environment to function. And currently, some element of capitalism is required to build large-scale undertakings - if for no other reason than that the people you work with have families who'd like to eat, be housed, etc. You can fundamentally disagree with the system, but that means you opt out of all parts of it. And so they might not have been wrong about their belief system being incompatible with business/capitalism, but the idea that they could build something large without compromising was wrong. I, too, would like Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism - but you cannot get there from here by willing it to be true. (And it chafes me to say that, but that doesn't change the truth of it)
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Lots of successful FOSS projects have no 'elements of capitalism', depending of course on how you define the latter. Same goes for much scientific research, and many other enterprises.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      I'm not disagreeing with you (yet at least), but can you name some of these successful FOSS projects with no elements of capitalism so I can better understand? The only ones I can think of definitely have some elements of capitalism, whether it's people using it at or for work, or contributing to it as part of a work dependency/project. But of course my limited recall is not evidence that it doesn't exist, so I'd be really interested to hear about some.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        That's the matter of definition I was talking about. It's a society with lots of capitalism, so of course you'll have people involved who are also involved in capitalism; you'll buy your computers from capitalist companies, etc. That doesn't seem meaningful. So what do you mean? I mean that projects don't need to be capitalist enterprises. For example, they can run on donations or grants, with volunteer labor, etc.
        jeremyjh 3y ago
        I don't think it works as well for end user software. It works great for infrastructure software and libraries, because businesses contribute labor and benefit in turn from labor contributed from other businesses. But with end user software all the work is for a consumer who can't contribute much to the developers of the software. Of course there are such projects that receive enough in donations from end users to be sustained but not very many; and in the particular case of Linux desktop environments or distributions there is a lot of competition for users and donations of this type. The successful ones I can think of off the top of my head, such as Libre Office and Lichess are "killer applications" with no serious competition in FOSS.
- pexabit 3y ago
  Sometimes I marvel at what would be possible if just a sliver of open source talent was put to work building independent quality software for their own or an investor's profit. Marketing a product forces you to figure out what it is people actually need and deliver the knowledge and education people need to use a product well. In fact a lot of what is wrong with software from big tech companies is that individual programs are not written to make the program itself great, and the incentives generally do not encourage spending a lot of time making some part of Chrome or Safari more efficient. Open source will never spend time marketing anything, never spend time educating an actual mass of general users as to its virtues or how to use it well, and suffer as a result. You don't have Desktop Linux that blows everything else out of the water because that would require investors to stake a lot of money doing these things, which they will only do if there is profit. PopOS gets as close as you might with something like that, but is ultimately shackled by the fact they cannot sell their software. (Enterprise is different, where I guess you can nerf the product to make money on servicing instead). Even someone with infinite resources cannot do what a company selling something for a profit can because they are either ultimately captured by and beholden to some other interest other than the product itself, or constitutionally lack the energy to be daring and actually compete. Imagine what someone could do with a Firefox sold for a profit because of its superior functionality and superior efficiency.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    > Even someone with infinite resources cannot do what a company selling something for a profit can because they are either ultimately captured by and beholden to some other interest other than the product itself, or constitutionally lack the energy to be daring and actually compete. Imagine what someone could do with a Firefox sold for a profit because of its superior functionality and superior efficiency. turns on imagination…Firefox eventually goes all-in on making profit from selling user data and making advertising deals after they realize that the vast majority of users are totally fine with the default and other free options and have no interest in paying for your product.
    - pexabit 3y ago
      Yeah advertising is a failure mode of what I said. But if Firefox ever decided to make a lot of money by selling good browsers at a high price to paying users, well I think the result would be quite interesting.

aroman 3y ago

It’s not that they didn’t understand how to run a business… their refusal to accept “business help” was not because of inexperience or incompetence but because they didn’t believe it was compatible with their strongly idealistic perspective on business/capitalism/the world. I’m not sure they’re wrong.

groby_b 3y ago
Here's the thing: You function in your environment, and you need your environment to function. And currently, some element of capitalism is required to build large-scale undertakings - if for no other reason than that the people you work with have families who'd like to eat, be housed, etc. You can fundamentally disagree with the system, but that means you opt out of all parts of it. And so they might not have been wrong about their belief system being incompatible with business/capitalism, but the idea that they could build something large without compromising was wrong. I, too, would like Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism - but you cannot get there from here by willing it to be true. (And it chafes me to say that, but that doesn't change the truth of it)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Lots of successful FOSS projects have no 'elements of capitalism', depending of course on how you define the latter. Same goes for much scientific research, and many other enterprises.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you (yet at least), but can you name some of these successful FOSS projects with no elements of capitalism so I can better understand? The only ones I can think of definitely have some elements of capitalism, whether it's people using it at or for work, or contributing to it as part of a work dependency/project. But of course my limited recall is not evidence that it doesn't exist, so I'd be really interested to hear about some.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      That's the matter of definition I was talking about. It's a society with lots of capitalism, so of course you'll have people involved who are also involved in capitalism; you'll buy your computers from capitalist companies, etc. That doesn't seem meaningful. So what do you mean? I mean that projects don't need to be capitalist enterprises. For example, they can run on donations or grants, with volunteer labor, etc.
      - jeremyjh 3y ago
        I don't think it works as well for end user software. It works great for infrastructure software and libraries, because businesses contribute labor and benefit in turn from labor contributed from other businesses. But with end user software all the work is for a consumer who can't contribute much to the developers of the software. Of course there are such projects that receive enough in donations from end users to be sustained but not very many; and in the particular case of Linux desktop environments or distributions there is a lot of competition for users and donations of this type. The successful ones I can think of off the top of my head, such as Libre Office and Lichess are "killer applications" with no serious competition in FOSS.
pexabit 3y ago
Sometimes I marvel at what would be possible if just a sliver of open source talent was put to work building independent quality software for their own or an investor's profit. Marketing a product forces you to figure out what it is people actually need and deliver the knowledge and education people need to use a product well. In fact a lot of what is wrong with software from big tech companies is that individual programs are not written to make the program itself great, and the incentives generally do not encourage spending a lot of time making some part of Chrome or Safari more efficient. Open source will never spend time marketing anything, never spend time educating an actual mass of general users as to its virtues or how to use it well, and suffer as a result. You don't have Desktop Linux that blows everything else out of the water because that would require investors to stake a lot of money doing these things, which they will only do if there is profit. PopOS gets as close as you might with something like that, but is ultimately shackled by the fact they cannot sell their software. (Enterprise is different, where I guess you can nerf the product to make money on servicing instead). Even someone with infinite resources cannot do what a company selling something for a profit can because they are either ultimately captured by and beholden to some other interest other than the product itself, or constitutionally lack the energy to be daring and actually compete. Imagine what someone could do with a Firefox sold for a profit because of its superior functionality and superior efficiency.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  > Even someone with infinite resources cannot do what a company selling something for a profit can because they are either ultimately captured by and beholden to some other interest other than the product itself, or constitutionally lack the energy to be daring and actually compete. Imagine what someone could do with a Firefox sold for a profit because of its superior functionality and superior efficiency. turns on imagination…Firefox eventually goes all-in on making profit from selling user data and making advertising deals after they realize that the vast majority of users are totally fine with the default and other free options and have no interest in paying for your product.
  - pexabit 3y ago
    Yeah advertising is a failure mode of what I said. But if Firefox ever decided to make a lot of money by selling good browsers at a high price to paying users, well I think the result would be quite interesting.