3 ms·

Well, the obvious negative one should always consider is whether the consumer needs to pay more. A nonzero number of employee hours were spent on this migration

Well, the obvious negative one should always consider is whether the consumer needs to pay more. A nonzero number of employee hours were spent on this migration and we should expect to see that reflected in the accounting somewhere. I would say the same thing for EU to US migrations, to be clear. This is just something that should always be considered reflexively.

palata 1y ago
On the other hand, people in Europe are more and more trying to find alternatives to US services. Whereas people looking into SourceHut from the US would probably to it because they want an alternative to TooBigTech (not necessarily a US alternative? Not sure).
- hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
  That isn't at odds with the concept of prices being affected. If anything, we would expect the fracturing of larger markets into smaller markets (by any means - here it's geopolitical and trust driven) to raise prices on everyone, US and Europe alike. Perfect competition assumes infinite players for a reason, after all.
diggan 1y ago
> one should always consider is whether the consumer needs to pay more That makes sense in the traditional/American viewpoint of aiming to maximize profits, or however it goes. But Sourcehut seems to take a different viewpoint than that, with a big focus on 100% FOSS, then Europe obviously makes much more sense than the US, even if there is a non-zero amount of hours involved with the migration. And with the FOSS perspective, the move vice-versa wouldn't make much sense at all.
- oaiey 1y ago
  upvote to both of you. both points are valid and both perspectives are fine.
- hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
  Europe doesn't "obviously" make much more sense than anywhere else for FOSS. I know of no law in the US that says e.g. you can't license software under BSD-3 without a notarization or whatever. More importantly, the comparison you are drawing equates the "American viewpoint" of aiming to maximize profits directly to the goal of aiming to minimize cost to the end consumer. As in: "Yeah, our customers have to pay $30 instead of $20 a year now that we're EU-based, but so what? We're not in it to maximize profits." Excuse me?
  - diggan 1y ago
    > Europe doesn't "obviously" make much more sense than anywhere else for FOSS. I know of no law in the US that It's not about laws, but about the community. If you're building a community and organization that is 100% about serving a specific community (in this case FOSS), then it makes sense to be wherever that community is strongest and healthiest, so in this case Europe. Regardless of laws. > As in: "Yeah, our customers have to pay $30 instead of $20 a year now that we're EU-based, but so what? We're not in it to maximize profits." Excuse me? That's you're still thinking in terms of "customers" and charging people higher/lower just makes it more obvious how Americans are constantly focused on profits and money. I don't see how that made up argument is even applicable here, care to explain without any more contrived examples?

palata 1y ago

On the other hand, people in Europe are more and more trying to find alternatives to US services. Whereas people looking into SourceHut from the US would probably to it because they want an alternative to TooBigTech (not necessarily a US alternative? Not sure).

hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
That isn't at odds with the concept of prices being affected. If anything, we would expect the fracturing of larger markets into smaller markets (by any means - here it's geopolitical and trust driven) to raise prices on everyone, US and Europe alike. Perfect competition assumes infinite players for a reason, after all.

diggan 1y ago

> one should always consider is whether the consumer needs to pay more That makes sense in the traditional/American viewpoint of aiming to maximize profits, or however it goes. But Sourcehut seems to take a different viewpoint than that, with a big focus on 100% FOSS, then Europe obviously makes much more sense than the US, even if there is a non-zero amount of hours involved with the migration. And with the FOSS perspective, the move vice-versa wouldn't make much sense at all.

oaiey 1y ago
upvote to both of you. both points are valid and both perspectives are fine.
hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
Europe doesn't "obviously" make much more sense than anywhere else for FOSS. I know of no law in the US that says e.g. you can't license software under BSD-3 without a notarization or whatever. More importantly, the comparison you are drawing equates the "American viewpoint" of aiming to maximize profits directly to the goal of aiming to minimize cost to the end consumer. As in: "Yeah, our customers have to pay $30 instead of $20 a year now that we're EU-based, but so what? We're not in it to maximize profits." Excuse me?
- diggan 1y ago
  > Europe doesn't "obviously" make much more sense than anywhere else for FOSS. I know of no law in the US that It's not about laws, but about the community. If you're building a community and organization that is 100% about serving a specific community (in this case FOSS), then it makes sense to be wherever that community is strongest and healthiest, so in this case Europe. Regardless of laws. > As in: "Yeah, our customers have to pay $30 instead of $20 a year now that we're EU-based, but so what? We're not in it to maximize profits." Excuse me? That's you're still thinking in terms of "customers" and charging people higher/lower just makes it more obvious how Americans are constantly focused on profits and money. I don't see how that made up argument is even applicable here, care to explain without any more contrived examples?