2 ms·
I mean, sometimes the entitled developers are right and predict that the monetization of a software product will lead to it's inevitable demise. More often than
by talldayo 2y ago
I mean, sometimes the entitled developers are right and predict that the monetization of a software product will lead to it's inevitable demise. More often than not that's how these sorts of projects end up.
Linux as a whole exists because developers said "fuck AT&T, we're taking this train off the rails" and nobody ever looked back since.
- scarface_74 2y agoAnd the majority of code in Linux is created by corporate employees getting paid to make changes. Those companies are merely helping to “commoditize their complements”
- talldayo 2y agoThat's not really a problem as long as the source license stays the same. If Amazon or Microsoft need a feature in the kernel, nobody tends to care as long as it's GPL. > Those companies are merely helping to “commoditize their complements” That's how they justify it internally, yeah. From an administrative standpoint it's pretty obvious that they all choose Linux because it's easier than retrofitting proprietary UNIX for modern software. But indeed, they market it as goodwill and complimentary development.
- wcedmisten 2y agoI think you may have misinterpreted the parent comment. "Complement" as in a complementary good in economics terms. Not "complimentary", as in free. There's a good article on this by Joel Spolsky https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]