3 ms·

... having to pay $629 just to ship a thing you made for free? I refuse to accept this as a normal thing to do. Microsoft inflicted this upon the Windows ecosy

... having to pay $629 just to ship a thing you made for free? I refuse to accept this as a normal thing to do. Microsoft inflicted this upon the Windows ecosystem themselves.

keepamovin 3y ago
Yet you didn't really make it for "Free". That's part of the lie (innocent here surely) that developers time is "limiteless and cost free". Lies such as these lead to and support the abusive and exploitative sense of entitlement that many, unfortunately, take towards OSS. It's costs are many. If you have a more humane bent you will consider the psychological toll, and note the many "I'm leaving OSS" posts one can observe. If you have a different bent you may appreciate the more economic cost incurred by this lack of market efficiency: an exploitative market that fails to ensure commensurate exchange of value does not have much future. At best, "cost free" OSS is a short-term play, murkily backed by the same "robber baron" attitudes than underpin the exploitation of workers (and the gaslighting of the whole class to believe they can expect nothing more), throughout human history. Let's not permit OSS to go down this sad, tired and disastrous path. You can't grow the productive output of a market unless you respect property rights and exchange of value.
- blueflow 3y ago
  I did make it for free. And i expect no recognition or profit. I did my OSS contributions for my own usecases and sharing the fruits with the public is a neat side effect. Also your hyperbole is apalling.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    The only appalling hyperbole is you trying to sneakily misrepresent the above as hyperbolic! :) > I did make it for free. And i expect no recognition or profit. But you didn't make it for free. Your time is not free. The resources you use are not free. What you expect, is, to put it lightly, flexible. Your expectations change as you gain understanding and experience. Perhaps you're fond of RPGs? Like that. > I did my OSS contributions for my own usecases and sharing the fruits with the public is a neat side effect. Plenty of businesses began the same way.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      The phrase "make it for free" means the people who use or enjoy it are not expected to pay or provide other direct compensation for it. Think "make it for uncompensated use". It does not mean that it cost nothing to make, as otherwise that phrase would have no meaning. Yet a Google search finds people using the phrase "make it for free" for things which quick clearly require the input of personal time ("DIY Circular Saw Storage Holder (Make it for Free)"; "I'll make it for free to get experience."; "Why would a client want to pay for a website, when they can just make it for free with platforms like ..."; and "My Favorite Composting Bin; How to make it for free in minutes.") > Plenty of businesses began the same way. So did a huge amount of academic research projects, with funding paid for by other sources.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        It seems your point is that I misunderstand the meaning and my dispute is thus invalid. Let's dive in, but first address your point about projects. It’s true that academic projects begin like that, too, but if you want to turn them into businesses you have to think about business aspects. Google for example, with ads: that started as an academic project. Regarding your point about meanings, the more common English usage of the quoted phrase is to signify the meaning: “creation had zero cost”, as indicated by your Google search. In English, the more common way to convey the meaning “a product with zero price”, is, “It’s free”. To conclude, while it seems your point is that I misunderstand the meaning and therefore my dispute is invalid, it also seems true that it is your interpretation which goes against the common usage. Could you be be deliberately misinterpreting simply to create a disagreement, or is it accidental? In any case, it’s hard to argue that it's my point which is invalid. Instead, it looks as if your attempt to discredit my point by misrepresenting its meaning is the only invalid thing here.
        eesmith 3y ago
        "but if you want to turn them into businesses you have to think about business aspects." Sure. But you never established that blueflow wanted to turn the software into a business before rejecting the "for free" statement. For all you know, blueflow was working on a scientific research project as a retirement hobby.

... having to pay $629 just to ship a thing you made for free? I refuse to accept this as a normal thing to do. Microsoft inflicted this upon the Windows ecosystem themselves.

keepamovin 3y ago

Yet you didn't really make it for "Free". That's part of the lie (innocent here surely) that developers time is "limiteless and cost free". Lies such as these lead to and support the abusive and exploitative sense of entitlement that many, unfortunately, take towards OSS. It's costs are many. If you have a more humane bent you will consider the psychological toll, and note the many "I'm leaving OSS" posts one can observe. If you have a different bent you may appreciate the more economic cost incurred by this lack of market efficiency: an exploitative market that fails to ensure commensurate exchange of value does not have much future. At best, "cost free" OSS is a short-term play, murkily backed by the same "robber baron" attitudes than underpin the exploitation of workers (and the gaslighting of the whole class to believe they can expect nothing more), throughout human history. Let's not permit OSS to go down this sad, tired and disastrous path. You can't grow the productive output of a market unless you respect property rights and exchange of value.

blueflow 3y ago
I did make it for free. And i expect no recognition or profit. I did my OSS contributions for my own usecases and sharing the fruits with the public is a neat side effect. Also your hyperbole is apalling.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  The only appalling hyperbole is you trying to sneakily misrepresent the above as hyperbolic! :) > I did make it for free. And i expect no recognition or profit. But you didn't make it for free. Your time is not free. The resources you use are not free. What you expect, is, to put it lightly, flexible. Your expectations change as you gain understanding and experience. Perhaps you're fond of RPGs? Like that. > I did my OSS contributions for my own usecases and sharing the fruits with the public is a neat side effect. Plenty of businesses began the same way.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    The phrase "make it for free" means the people who use or enjoy it are not expected to pay or provide other direct compensation for it. Think "make it for uncompensated use". It does not mean that it cost nothing to make, as otherwise that phrase would have no meaning. Yet a Google search finds people using the phrase "make it for free" for things which quick clearly require the input of personal time ("DIY Circular Saw Storage Holder (Make it for Free)"; "I'll make it for free to get experience."; "Why would a client want to pay for a website, when they can just make it for free with platforms like ..."; and "My Favorite Composting Bin; How to make it for free in minutes.") > Plenty of businesses began the same way. So did a huge amount of academic research projects, with funding paid for by other sources.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      It seems your point is that I misunderstand the meaning and my dispute is thus invalid. Let's dive in, but first address your point about projects. It’s true that academic projects begin like that, too, but if you want to turn them into businesses you have to think about business aspects. Google for example, with ads: that started as an academic project. Regarding your point about meanings, the more common English usage of the quoted phrase is to signify the meaning: “creation had zero cost”, as indicated by your Google search. In English, the more common way to convey the meaning “a product with zero price”, is, “It’s free”. To conclude, while it seems your point is that I misunderstand the meaning and therefore my dispute is invalid, it also seems true that it is your interpretation which goes against the common usage. Could you be be deliberately misinterpreting simply to create a disagreement, or is it accidental? In any case, it’s hard to argue that it's my point which is invalid. Instead, it looks as if your attempt to discredit my point by misrepresenting its meaning is the only invalid thing here.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        "but if you want to turn them into businesses you have to think about business aspects." Sure. But you never established that blueflow wanted to turn the software into a business before rejecting the "for free" statement. For all you know, blueflow was working on a scientific research project as a retirement hobby.