4 ms·

Free software became successful because it rendered things mostly obsolete ie commercial Unix and proprietary compilers. Fediverse doesn’t really have anything

Free software became successful because it rendered things mostly obsolete ie commercial Unix and proprietary compilers. Fediverse doesn’t really have anything on FAANG. It needs people to run it, who’s gonna pay them?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> Free software became successful because it rendered things mostly obsolete ie commercial Unix and proprietary compilers. Free software became successful in as much as it reduced the cost for companies selling other things to consumers. Would Google or Facebook be viable if they had to pay Microsoft (or Sun) a license per server. Linux enabled them to have a free operating system to run all their data tracking for ads. Free software reduced the cost for Apple to develop the he software that powers iPhones and Macs. For the most part, the end user actually doesn’t use the free software, rather it is a part of something else they pay for.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  > For the most part, the end user actually doesn’t use the free software, rather it is a part of something else they pay for. That's surprisingly true even when the FOSS alternative is a perfectly suitable drop in replacement for a popular proprietary program. How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using LibreOffice? When FOSS became more popular than the proprietary competition, it was only because the FOSS product was 10x better (think Firefox and Chrome vs Internet Explorer or VLC vs Windows Media Player and Quicktime) not because users actually chose FOSS. Another example that proves this is how the single biggest increase in Linux desktop market share was likely due to a gaming handheld called the Steam Deck that is actually a Linux laptop. Linux allows Valve to sell gaming hardware without paying license fees to Microsoft or creating their own operating system. The reality of FOSS is a far cry from the ideals of Stallman, ESR, et.al. that were the original rationale behind FOSS licenses.
  - NavinF 3y ago
    > How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using LibreOffice? How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using Google Docs/Sheets/...? LibreOffice doesn't replace Office for the same reason why Sheets doesn't replace Excel despite being free. Huge difference in functionality if you're more than a casual user Same applies to most free alternatives to industry standard software. FreeCAD isn't a replacement for Solidworks, GIMP isn't a replacement for photoshop, etc
  - mananaysiempre 3y ago
    > Linux allows Valve to sell gaming hardware without paying license fees to Microsoft or creating their own operating system. From reviews of Windows-based gaming handhelds (ROG Ally, etc.), the cost of a Windows license is likely secondary compared to just how badly the stock Windows UI and power management (and incessant forced updates) suit the form factor, and Microsoft don’t look like they can be bothered to accomodate this comparatively small market (at least judging by their public behaviour so far). That’s not necessarily to say that this was Valve’s original motivation. I think it’s just as likely they were setting up a fallback position for when Microsoft tried to push them out of game distribution using their Xbox platform. But right now it wouldn’t make sense for Valve to switch back even if that problem disappeared overnight.
    - sleepybrett 3y ago
      I think MS won't bother but instead build an xbox portable on the same type of platform with a tweaked version of whatever bastardized windows runs on xbox. Then maybe they will license the software stack to your ASUSes and whomever.
- ThrowawayR2 3y ago
  > "Would Google or Facebook be viable if they had to pay Microsoft (or Sun) a license per server." Google and Facebook could afford to pay for expensive servers, even more expensive datacenters to house them in, and fat compensation packages to their employees and execs, so obviously yes. Plenty of industries exist that have high capex costs and manage to get off the ground just fine. Continuing to give away free software to startups with millions of VC dollars raised that are growing to billion dollar businesses no longer makes sense.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

> Free software became successful because it rendered things mostly obsolete ie commercial Unix and proprietary compilers. Free software became successful in as much as it reduced the cost for companies selling other things to consumers. Would Google or Facebook be viable if they had to pay Microsoft (or Sun) a license per server. Linux enabled them to have a free operating system to run all their data tracking for ads. Free software reduced the cost for Apple to develop the he software that powers iPhones and Macs. For the most part, the end user actually doesn’t use the free software, rather it is a part of something else they pay for.

bdw5204 3y ago
> For the most part, the end user actually doesn’t use the free software, rather it is a part of something else they pay for. That's surprisingly true even when the FOSS alternative is a perfectly suitable drop in replacement for a popular proprietary program. How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using LibreOffice? When FOSS became more popular than the proprietary competition, it was only because the FOSS product was 10x better (think Firefox and Chrome vs Internet Explorer or VLC vs Windows Media Player and Quicktime) not because users actually chose FOSS. Another example that proves this is how the single biggest increase in Linux desktop market share was likely due to a gaming handheld called the Steam Deck that is actually a Linux laptop. Linux allows Valve to sell gaming hardware without paying license fees to Microsoft or creating their own operating system. The reality of FOSS is a far cry from the ideals of Stallman, ESR, et.al. that were the original rationale behind FOSS licenses.
- NavinF 3y ago
  > How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using LibreOffice? How many people pay for Microsoft Office instead of just using Google Docs/Sheets/...? LibreOffice doesn't replace Office for the same reason why Sheets doesn't replace Excel despite being free. Huge difference in functionality if you're more than a casual user Same applies to most free alternatives to industry standard software. FreeCAD isn't a replacement for Solidworks, GIMP isn't a replacement for photoshop, etc
- mananaysiempre 3y ago
  > Linux allows Valve to sell gaming hardware without paying license fees to Microsoft or creating their own operating system. From reviews of Windows-based gaming handhelds (ROG Ally, etc.), the cost of a Windows license is likely secondary compared to just how badly the stock Windows UI and power management (and incessant forced updates) suit the form factor, and Microsoft don’t look like they can be bothered to accomodate this comparatively small market (at least judging by their public behaviour so far). That’s not necessarily to say that this was Valve’s original motivation. I think it’s just as likely they were setting up a fallback position for when Microsoft tried to push them out of game distribution using their Xbox platform. But right now it wouldn’t make sense for Valve to switch back even if that problem disappeared overnight.
  - sleepybrett 3y ago
    I think MS won't bother but instead build an xbox portable on the same type of platform with a tweaked version of whatever bastardized windows runs on xbox. Then maybe they will license the software stack to your ASUSes and whomever.
ThrowawayR2 3y ago
> "Would Google or Facebook be viable if they had to pay Microsoft (or Sun) a license per server." Google and Facebook could afford to pay for expensive servers, even more expensive datacenters to house them in, and fat compensation packages to their employees and execs, so obviously yes. Plenty of industries exist that have high capex costs and manage to get off the ground just fine. Continuing to give away free software to startups with millions of VC dollars raised that are growing to billion dollar businesses no longer makes sense.