3 ms·

> FOSS didn't do that at all except in (relatively few) nieches where the FOSS software is superior to commercial alternatives and there you can just use those

> FOSS didn't do that at all except in (relatively few) nieches where the FOSS software is superior to commercial alternatives and there you can just use those FOSS programs without being subjected to the abusive commercial software. You're thinking end-user software, but that's not where the bulk of the now-dead software market would be. Think libraries. People used to, and in some specific applications still do, sell proprietary toolkits or component libraries. Also, a free solution doesn't need to be superior, or even equal to, a commercial ones, to kill the latter - it just needs to give an impression that it could do the same things as proprietary offering; companies are happy to give workers shitty software, or throw warm bodies at underfeatured libraries, if it looks like they can save on licensing costs of better proprietary tools. (There's a limit to that, which is why selling software is still somewhat possible in B2B context. Consumers and very small companies, on the other hand, are willing to go to extreme effort in order to avoid paying anything, opportunity costs be damned.)

account42 2y ago
How is this a problem though? Where are the abusive business models in free libraries? And yes, the open source libraries that replaced closed source ones are often superior. And that's even before considering that having source code access and the right to distribute modified versions is itself HUGE - a library is immensively more valuable if you can go fix problems yourself instead of being blocked by a vendor that has different priorities from you. Is your issue simply that open source made some business models obsolete? Because that's just a natural part of progress and not an issue in of itself as far as I'm concerned. > Consumers and very small companies, on the other hand, are willing to go to extreme effort in order to avoid paying anything, opportunity costs be damned. That really depends on the kind of software though. Yeah, I'm not going to pay for yet another version some standard tool that has been available for decades with only marginal improvements. But truly unique software can still sell. Games are a good example. There is also the matter of risk. If an open source project dies then someone else can pick it up or you yourself (in case of developers or small businesses) can make the usually minor changes needed to keep it running. If a proprietary software business dies or just tries to add anti-user features because these days getting money from selling something isn't enough then you are SOL - better hope that a competitor is available and can import all the proprietary data formats.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Is your issue simply that open source made some business models obsolete? Because that's just a natural part of progress and not an issue in of itself as far as I'm concerned. No, it's not just that. I'm very much of the opinion that no one is entitled to their business model. Things change, some kinds of businesses no longer make sense. The issue I'm writing about is, FOSS killed a honest business model, resulting in dishonest and abusive business models being the only way you can make money on software.

account42 2y ago

How is this a problem though? Where are the abusive business models in free libraries? And yes, the open source libraries that replaced closed source ones are often superior. And that's even before considering that having source code access and the right to distribute modified versions is itself HUGE - a library is immensively more valuable if you can go fix problems yourself instead of being blocked by a vendor that has different priorities from you. Is your issue simply that open source made some business models obsolete? Because that's just a natural part of progress and not an issue in of itself as far as I'm concerned. > Consumers and very small companies, on the other hand, are willing to go to extreme effort in order to avoid paying anything, opportunity costs be damned. That really depends on the kind of software though. Yeah, I'm not going to pay for yet another version some standard tool that has been available for decades with only marginal improvements. But truly unique software can still sell. Games are a good example. There is also the matter of risk. If an open source project dies then someone else can pick it up or you yourself (in case of developers or small businesses) can make the usually minor changes needed to keep it running. If a proprietary software business dies or just tries to add anti-user features because these days getting money from selling something isn't enough then you are SOL - better hope that a competitor is available and can import all the proprietary data formats.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Is your issue simply that open source made some business models obsolete? Because that's just a natural part of progress and not an issue in of itself as far as I'm concerned. No, it's not just that. I'm very much of the opinion that no one is entitled to their business model. Things change, some kinds of businesses no longer make sense. The issue I'm writing about is, FOSS killed a honest business model, resulting in dishonest and abusive business models being the only way you can make money on software.