4 ms·

Makes sense to expect this kind of thing to be open source. The whole point of providing improved compatibility is to make people’s lives easier, and open sourc

Makes sense to expect this kind of thing to be open source. The whole point of providing improved compatibility is to make people’s lives easier, and open source is usually an important feature to ensure wide compatibility. It also means projects can live on after the creators move to other things, people can submit patches for important features or bug fixes, and generally makes the system much more useful.

dylan604 2y ago
I don't find it wrong for someone to attempt to make money back on their time and experience of doing the work. I don't mind people that offer that back as open source either. However, I do have a problem of people expecting everything to be open/free, especially those that then go on a crusade chastising those that do try to make money.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  I'm really trying to keep this about the engineering features of a system rather than moral judgments. Open source systems are simply more flexible and adaptable than proprietary systems, which have their own benefits. In today's world, the engineering value of open source systems is becoming so important that people are looking for other ways to provide for the developers creating these systems. It can be surprising when a project creator builds something in an area that is usually all open source, but they choose a proprietary path. Just look at the problems created by NVIDIA for their use of proprietary software in CUDA and their GPUs. This software is an attempt to fix issues created by proprietary software with another piece of proprietary software, which is if nothing else an interesting decision.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    UNIX wasn't free. Windows wasn't free. It wasn't until some knucklehead came along and did something abnormal and gave away their thing. Bakers don't give away their goods. Mechanics don't typically repair things for free. Builders don't build things for free. Gas stations don't give away gas. Why do we think all software should be free, and then think that those that don't give it away are the abnormal ones?
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > Why do we think all software should be free Why do people return Windows laptops when they have to pay for a Windows License Activation? Because every single OEM pays for it; you don't expect to buy Windows because it is a failed B2C business model. Nobody wants it. Same goes for proprietary UNIX, and people wish it was the case for Nvidia drivers. I own CUDA hardware and lament the fact that cross-industry GPGPU died so FAANG could sell licensed AI SDKs. The only thing stopping AI from being "free" is the limitations OEMs impose on their hardware. > that those that don't give it away are the abnormal ones? They are. Admit it; the internet is the new normal, if your software isn't as "free" as opening a website, you're weird. If I have to pay to access your little forum, I won't use it. If I have to buy your app to see what it's like, I'll never know what you're offering. Part of what makes Nvidia's business model so successful is that they do "give away" CUDA to anyone that owns their hardware. There is no developer fee or mandatory licensing cost, it is plug-and-play with the hardware. Same goes for OpenAI, they'd have never succeeded if you had to buy "the ChatGPT App" from your App Store.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        > Why do people return Windows laptops when they have to pay for a Windows License Activation? The internet echo chamber strikes again. Exactly how many people are actually doing this? Not many, and those that are all hangout together. The rest of the world just blindly goes about their day using Windows while surfing the web using Chrome. Sometimes, it's a good thing to get outside your bubble. It's a big world out there, and not everybody sees the world as you do
        talldayo 2y ago
        > The rest of the world just blindly goes about their day using Windows while surfing the web using Chrome. Paying for Windows? I think you missed my point. If your computer doesn't ship with an OS, paid or otherwise, people think it's a glitch. The average consumer will sooner return their laptop before they buy a license of Windows, create an Install Media from their old device and flash the new hardware with a purchased license. They'll get a Chromebook instead, people don't buy Windows today. The internet has conditioned the majority of modern technology users to reject and habitually avoid non-free experiences. Ad-enabled free platforms and their pervasive success is all the evidence you need. Commercial software as it existed 20 or 30 years ago is a dead business. Free reigns supreme.
nicce 2y ago
> Makes sense to expect this kind of thing to be open source. The whole point of providing improved compatibility is to make people’s lives easier, and open source is usually an important feature to ensure wide compatibility. It also means projects can live on after the creator AMD just bought company working with similar things for more than 600m.

dylan604 2y ago

I don't find it wrong for someone to attempt to make money back on their time and experience of doing the work. I don't mind people that offer that back as open source either. However, I do have a problem of people expecting everything to be open/free, especially those that then go on a crusade chastising those that do try to make money.

TaylorAlexander 2y ago
I'm really trying to keep this about the engineering features of a system rather than moral judgments. Open source systems are simply more flexible and adaptable than proprietary systems, which have their own benefits. In today's world, the engineering value of open source systems is becoming so important that people are looking for other ways to provide for the developers creating these systems. It can be surprising when a project creator builds something in an area that is usually all open source, but they choose a proprietary path. Just look at the problems created by NVIDIA for their use of proprietary software in CUDA and their GPUs. This software is an attempt to fix issues created by proprietary software with another piece of proprietary software, which is if nothing else an interesting decision.
- dylan604 2y ago
  UNIX wasn't free. Windows wasn't free. It wasn't until some knucklehead came along and did something abnormal and gave away their thing. Bakers don't give away their goods. Mechanics don't typically repair things for free. Builders don't build things for free. Gas stations don't give away gas. Why do we think all software should be free, and then think that those that don't give it away are the abnormal ones?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Why do we think all software should be free Why do people return Windows laptops when they have to pay for a Windows License Activation? Because every single OEM pays for it; you don't expect to buy Windows because it is a failed B2C business model. Nobody wants it. Same goes for proprietary UNIX, and people wish it was the case for Nvidia drivers. I own CUDA hardware and lament the fact that cross-industry GPGPU died so FAANG could sell licensed AI SDKs. The only thing stopping AI from being "free" is the limitations OEMs impose on their hardware. > that those that don't give it away are the abnormal ones? They are. Admit it; the internet is the new normal, if your software isn't as "free" as opening a website, you're weird. If I have to pay to access your little forum, I won't use it. If I have to buy your app to see what it's like, I'll never know what you're offering. Part of what makes Nvidia's business model so successful is that they do "give away" CUDA to anyone that owns their hardware. There is no developer fee or mandatory licensing cost, it is plug-and-play with the hardware. Same goes for OpenAI, they'd have never succeeded if you had to buy "the ChatGPT App" from your App Store.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      > Why do people return Windows laptops when they have to pay for a Windows License Activation? The internet echo chamber strikes again. Exactly how many people are actually doing this? Not many, and those that are all hangout together. The rest of the world just blindly goes about their day using Windows while surfing the web using Chrome. Sometimes, it's a good thing to get outside your bubble. It's a big world out there, and not everybody sees the world as you do
      - talldayo 2y ago
        > The rest of the world just blindly goes about their day using Windows while surfing the web using Chrome. Paying for Windows? I think you missed my point. If your computer doesn't ship with an OS, paid or otherwise, people think it's a glitch. The average consumer will sooner return their laptop before they buy a license of Windows, create an Install Media from their old device and flash the new hardware with a purchased license. They'll get a Chromebook instead, people don't buy Windows today. The internet has conditioned the majority of modern technology users to reject and habitually avoid non-free experiences. Ad-enabled free platforms and their pervasive success is all the evidence you need. Commercial software as it existed 20 or 30 years ago is a dead business. Free reigns supreme.

nicce 2y ago

> Makes sense to expect this kind of thing to be open source. The whole point of providing improved compatibility is to make people’s lives easier, and open source is usually an important feature to ensure wide compatibility. It also means projects can live on after the creator AMD just bought company working with similar things for more than 600m.