3 ms·

I completely agree. The "nothing was lost because you can still build it yourself" argument could just as well be used to make the entire thing proprietary. You

by crote 1y ago

I completely agree. The "nothing was lost because you can still build it yourself" argument could just as well be used to make the entire thing proprietary. You still have your Turing Machine, so you didn't lose anything! I don't have a big problem with the "paid bonus features" business model in general, but when you're removing features from the open-source version, at least be honest about it. And it's open source: if it breaks you get to keep both pieces, so where's the support burden supposed to come from?

rovr138 1y ago
Same. I have no problem with paid features. I have no problem with them making money. I have no problem with them monetizing it this way. I have no problem with the 501c3. I think that moving things from free to paid is them forcing the hand of users to pay, which is sweeping the rug under them. This is more on _how they did it_, more than the fact that it's paid. I just don't like how they did it and it's not a good argument to justify it.