3 ms·

* Paid services advertise. OSS projects generally don't. * Paid services usually have customer support. OSS projects generally don't. * Paid services have ni

* Paid services advertise. OSS projects generally don't. * Paid services usually have customer support. OSS projects generally don't. * Paid services have nice on-ramping videos and nice installers. OSS projects have config files, install procedures, tutorials, scattered blog posts, FAQs, mail lists, etc. * In the end, it is all about how much work you're going to do yourself. You can't do it all.

gioele 12y ago
> * In the end, it is all about how much work you're going to do yourself. You can't do it all. In my perfect I would pay for services that take care of setting up FLOSS projects and looking after the daily problems (network, storage, updates, configuration). The code is still free and libre, the people (and their experience) well paid.
- TallGuyShort 12y ago
  I believe this gets at the core of RMS' goal. I don't believe I've ever heard him say he's against people charging money for services, but even if he had, his point is that non-free software is inherently defective. I would also pay money for many of these services, but once I've paid I want the software to answer completely to me - don't hold it hostage.
sbarre 12y ago
This is a super important point. My group (the digital services division of a very large advertising agency) pays for Basecamp (pm tool) and Sifter (simple issue tracking) because the features and monthly price were better value than configuring and installing OSS tools, not to mention all the non-technical users who were already familiar with them and wouldn't require training on something they'd never seen before. However, we use Gitlab for our DVCS (kind of surprised that's not on the list!) because that was a) very easy to install and b) better value compared to paid offerings, based on our usage. Also it's for the developers only, so ramp-up is less of an issue even though none of us had used it before. So yeah for a lot of companies it's just about value for money. OSS is certainly free to download but the resource costs for installing/operating/training/supporting are not.

gioele 12y ago

> * In the end, it is all about how much work you're going to do yourself. You can't do it all. In my perfect I would pay for services that take care of setting up FLOSS projects and looking after the daily problems (network, storage, updates, configuration). The code is still free and libre, the people (and their experience) well paid.

TallGuyShort 12y ago
I believe this gets at the core of RMS' goal. I don't believe I've ever heard him say he's against people charging money for services, but even if he had, his point is that non-free software is inherently defective. I would also pay money for many of these services, but once I've paid I want the software to answer completely to me - don't hold it hostage.

sbarre 12y ago

This is a super important point. My group (the digital services division of a very large advertising agency) pays for Basecamp (pm tool) and Sifter (simple issue tracking) because the features and monthly price were better value than configuring and installing OSS tools, not to mention all the non-technical users who were already familiar with them and wouldn't require training on something they'd never seen before. However, we use Gitlab for our DVCS (kind of surprised that's not on the list!) because that was a) very easy to install and b) better value compared to paid offerings, based on our usage. Also it's for the developers only, so ramp-up is less of an issue even though none of us had used it before. So yeah for a lot of companies it's just about value for money. OSS is certainly free to download but the resource costs for installing/operating/training/supporting are not.