Post Aw5xecYTMZ2Z47PjUW by yogthos@social.marxist.network
(DIR) More posts by yogthos@social.marxist.network
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEYFaYPuKrSdTF2 by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T12:53:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
One huge impact mass FOSS adoption would have is that there would be a lot less software and hardware churn. Commercial nature of proprietary technology is the main driver for constant upgrade cycles we see. Companies need to constantly sell products to stay in business, and this means you have to deprecate old software and hardware in order to sell new versions of the product.🧵 #foss #opensource #oss
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEZatYgXr1pc05g by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T12:53:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Windows 11 roll out is a perfect example. Vast majority of Windows 10 users are perfectly happy with the way their computer works currently, they’re not demanding any new features, they just want their computer to continue to work the way it does currently. However, Microsoft is ending support for Windows 10 and now they’re forced to buy a new computer to keep doing what they’ve been doing.
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEb5420Gtdgjbkm by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T12:53:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This problem goes away entirely with open source because there is no commercial incentive at play. If a piece of software works, and there is a community of users using it, then it can keep working the way it does indefinitely. In cases where a software project goes in a directions some users don’t like, such as the case with Gnome, then software can be forked by users who want to go in a different direction or preserve original functionality. This is how Cinnamon and Mate projects came about.
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEcLlJPDrZlYSQ4 by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T12:54:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Another aspect of the open source dynamic is that there’s an incentive to optimize software. So, you can get continuous performance improvements without having to constantly upgrade your hardware. For most commercial software, there’s little incentive to do that since that costs company money. It’s easier to just expect users to upgrade their hardware if they want better performance.
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEdYunzL1KqiTYm by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T12:54:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Non-technical users in particular would be far better off if they had the option to fund open source software instead of buying commercial versions. Even having to pay equal amounts, the availability of the source puts more power in the hands of the users. For example, building on the example of Gnome, users of an existing software project could also pull funds together to pay developers to add features to the software or change functionality in a particular way.
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEec8tTVub9EZEG by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T12:54:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This is precisely what makes licenses like GPL so valuable in my opinion. It’s a license that ensure the source stays open, and in this way inherently gives more power to the users.
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEfaPHPifc3QhA8 by ikonoklast@chaos.social
2025-07-12T13:17:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos so how do you intend these advantages of open source development to get funded, so they are actually realized? i'm confused, because you say, there's no commercial incentive at play,
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEgf3Hd1swkbv2e by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T14:26:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ikonoklast there are already plenty of examples in the wild with open source foundations. I'm not sure what's confusing here because non profit organizations are not commercial in nature.
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEhlp9w2aO2mqEi by ikonoklast@chaos.social
2025-07-12T15:23:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos the point is that most of time the foundations don't actually pay the devs. there's a really small shift there where kde and gnome are starting to pay development work but the bulk is funded by for-profit-companies, it's not even close
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEindKh59ZwdnhA by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-12T16:03:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ikonoklast thing is that people don't do open source work with the profit as their primary motive, nor should it be. This whole thread is literally about explaining the perverse incentives that profit motive causes.Frankly, your whole argument makes little sense to me given that we have plenty of large scale successful open source projects already. Things can be improved of course, but clearly the model already works.
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEjVahGFBmHCuDA by ikonoklast@chaos.social
2025-07-12T16:16:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos i'm not arguing against open source, i'm arguing against this quote of yours "This problem goes away entirely with open source because there is no commercial incentive at play"While most of the work on open source software is actually done and paid for by companies with commercial incentive, just a different business model. Unfortunately we still live in capitalism after all: if there's no commercial incentive, then it usually doesn't happen
(DIR) Post #Aw4JEk8aMHR5jDS2zY by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-07-12T20:37:08Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
when users have freedom, the incentive for suppliers to impose updates on users isn't there, because there's hardly any power to make that work.but there is plenty of opportunity to offer commercial development services to users who want the software to do things it doesn't do. this is how most commercial software gets developed, whether it's free or proprietary, but a lot of it never gets seen by anyone but the paying (typically business) user. with free software, it's a lot more efficient because one can use existing free software as a baseline, and there's a incentive (from the maintenance cost PoV) for the feature to be contributed for all users to benefitCC: @yogthos@social.marxist.network
(DIR) Post #Aw5t1Swel7Ym9NneN6 by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-07-13T14:54:41.454040Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos No GPL version says "open" it it.The GPLv3 says rather; "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works."
(DIR) Post #Aw5tEDF4SBh5DGUVkm by Zergling_man@sacred.harpy.faith
2025-07-13T14:56:47.329234Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ikonoklast @yogthos @Suiseiseki
(DIR) Post #Aw5tHEtGmVxfC5jksC by Zergling_man@sacred.harpy.faith
2025-07-13T14:57:26.362687Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @Suiseiseki @ikonoklast oh nvm he's already here
(DIR) Post #Aw5tjpqOyw9Xud203c by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-07-13T15:02:41.916517Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ikonoklast @yogthos >if there's no commercial incentive, then it usually doesn't happenYou write that, but then I look at https://gnu.org/software and https://directory.fsf.org/
(DIR) Post #Aw5xecYTMZ2Z47PjUW by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-07-13T15:44:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki I meant open in a sense of continuing to be publicly available, the free definition that copyleft uses
(DIR) Post #Aw5xedwyAyEJONsoJU by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-07-13T15:46:34.086156Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedomsThe freedom definitions don't say "open".
(DIR) Post #Aw5y5WgzGgwohYE5L7 by ikonoklast@chaos.social
2025-07-13T15:44:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @yogthos the gnu project did valuable work but it wasn't remotely enough to be usable by the masses. nobody uses gnu hurd. for linux however you can easily find sources that over 80% of development is corporate funded. for the most important desktop environments, gnome and kde, you can easily find a few companies that played a key role to keep these afloat : red hat and qt company - to name two of the most important. most other desktops base their work on the technologies of these
(DIR) Post #Aw5y5Xh1Y2ZTnxFd2G by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-07-13T15:51:25.301884Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ikonoklast @yogthos >the gnu project did valuable work but it wasn't remotely enough to be usable by the masses.Many such cases; https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.htmlThe masses run GNU packages every single day without even realizing that they are running GNU software.>nobody uses gnu hurd.Such claim is false, as it is indeed used.That is only 1 GNU package developed for fun of it and only one of the kernel's available for GNU.Many use the GNU Grub OS and GNU Linux-libre.>for linux however you can easily find sources that over 80% of development is corporate funded. Not a problem as GNU Linux-libre goes and removes the proprietary software.>for the most important desktop environments, gnome and kdeI beg to differ.Those desktop environments don't even seem to even be the most used - I don't use them.>most other desktops base their work on the technologies of theseJust because a company has developed free software doesn't mean it's tainted - it's only tainted when it contains proprietary software.
(DIR) Post #Aw5yHbRHRiQUtjdcLQ by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-07-13T15:53:38.125421Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ikonoklast @yogthos Also, I can't believe I missed this.Imagine thinking that GNU was only developed in the past and not realizing development is ongoing.