I might just be painfully Minnesotan about this, but replying to someone's Windows problem with "try Linux" is super ineffective at both solving problems and bringing folks into Linux.
Besides; the statement is problematic by what it doesn't say:
"Try Linux and become not just a beta tester for a resource strapped desktop software commune, but also your own sys-admin with no friends, neighbours or even local businesses who can help you if things go wrong and a nagging sense of doubt as you profoundly strike out on your own against what your society tells you is normal."
Also add no right to complain is something is missing or removed. As every Linux user ought to be a programmer to send patches to the program. Complaining or pointing out flaws will lead to people telling you that you are disrespecting the developers. And then you will be given the famous advice of "you can code it yourself" or "patches welcome"
I just ask that they be Patreons, or private contractors, or be my best mate from long ago. You know, some sort of relationship.
A lot of foss users really need to step up and start paying their way. Not just for the complaints, but also because the economic market of free software suffers from having to drag around so many free loaders and it hurts to have to call that out.
@doctormo @raghukamath I think is kind of an unsolved problem within the idea of Free Software?
This might get too philosophical but a free software user is entitled to request something? What would be the “price” to pay for this request? Money? Commitment to the project? Does this “exchange” keep the project “free” (in the ‘libre’ type of meaning) ?
Can a person request something from another person? That depends on their relationship.
Can a person ask of a project? No, there's nothing to ask. You might as well ask for a cup of tea from a wall. What you need are human beings with relationships to each other.
A project is not a corporation where the customers pay nothing but still get their hearts desires. A project is just a social club with some intense fans.
You can buy a relationship, but you don't have to.
This is an interesting take. And it’s definitely aligned to what the article says.
At the end the hierarchy is the ultimate form of control. In which part of the hierarchy you are determines how much control you can impose upon the project (in other words, being the creator, someone actively contributing with code, bug fixer, docs writer , end user, are all positions in the hierarchy)
Yes you summed it up nicely, free software project is a social club. And who gets to enter the club is decided by the club owner.
I agree users should not be entitled to ask for things that they are not paying for. But then when something solves their problem today they would pay for that solution which will be within their budget it can proprietary. In free software world a donation or investment may or may not get them what they want. Atleast on the proprietary side they get some bot to talk to them nicely and gather feedback, although on that side profit is the motive. Both side need money so in the end there is no community or social good. A user has to vote with their money so why not be pragmatic and go with the thing that solves their issues rather than chasing ideals of people who do not care for them.
For example do you expect an artist to code a wayland compositor to get the features that they depend on. Funding it would also need huge amount of money. And even if you have money there must be someone willing to work on it. And even if they take time and learn
... show more
Yes you summed it up nicely, free software project is a social club. And who gets to enter the club is decided by the club owner.
I agree users should not be entitled to ask for things that they are not paying for. But then when something solves their problem today they would pay for that solution which will be within their budget it can proprietary. In free software world a donation or investment may or may not get them what they want. Atleast on the proprietary side they get some bot to talk to them nicely and gather feedback, although on that side profit is the motive. Both side need money so in the end there is no community or social good. A user has to vote with their money so why not be pragmatic and go with the thing that solves their issues rather than chasing ideals of people who do not care for them.
For example do you expect an artist to code a wayland compositor to get the features that they depend on. Funding it would also need huge amount of money. And even if you have money there must be someone willing to work on it. And even if they take time and learn and code it themselves who knows it will be accepted or not. So what should artists do in such scenario?
One of the criticisms of #Wayland is that it taxed resource strapped projects up and down the stack and they didn't even get a vote in having their time and money sucked away. Wayland was done to them.
That's an organization problem. We don't know our constituency, we don't know our suppliers, we don't offer service honestly. It's all a bit of a mess.
Form a relationship with people who they trust, who invest in that area. If there is nobody, demand it. Demand to pay to have issues fixed and complain about the lack of paid for services available for that area.
The market will grow if there's demand. But first users have to recognise their role in demanding to pay for their free software.
Paying for a feature is a bit too much for an end user.
Developing a feature usually requires more time and effort than what paying the next proprietary software license may cost
An end user won’t pay 500 usd (a not so huge weekly software developer salary) to get one week worth of work from the projects maintainer. If that’s the case he would pay the proprietary software license and continue with his life
Also The project maintainer may not want to work on that feature even if paid, so money is not going to entitle enyone to request anything.
I think the only way for somwone to obtain something from the project is to align with the project goals and actively contribute with code. If not, you are on your own
It will require a union of users acting in concert. This is easier to do when the project is providing the right kind of investment invitation (see blender)
We shouldn't be shy to recognise just what an awful change to the way software development works we are thinking about when we talk about Free Software.
It's awesome, it's much more effective, but it's a bastard to organise around. Well, until we develop new social technologies ofc.
@doctormo @raghukamath I’m not that aware of how blender has achieved what they have achieved. I find it amazing as blender is actually considered industry standard already (even if it’s not the most used software in the 3D industry)
Maybe other projects should check what blender did, but that also requires project owners to humble down and recognize that maybe the way they are handling their project is not the best (which in itself it’s a massive task)
Ton took the project seriously, and took the business seriously. You can't make an effective project without an effective business plan.
Blender has an effective business plan and has been taking it's economic responsibilities seriously.
Other projects can do this. Krita is on it's way, so is Godot. Inkscape is restrained by it's internal politics and Gimp seems hammered by the Gnome foundation. But even there things are changing.
@doctormo @raghukamath These projects you mention are very specific in their user base, and I fess it makes it a little more easy than something like Fedora project or Debian, or Opensuse, where many people use their “producr” for varied reasons and purposes. (Krita is pretty much used for digital drawing so mostly artists will use it), A Linux distribution has developers (the majority), sysadmins, students, artists, etc, etc… They are all “general purpose”
@doctormo @raghukamath and being general purpose makes way way more difficult to have a business plan. So the business plan ends up being the plan of the bigger sponsor I.e in the case of Fedora, it might be Red Hat’s interests?
Correct. A single large investor (google, Microsoft, Red Hat) no matter how altruistic or inattentive to their employees activities are going to have misaligned goals with actual users.
There's a big difference between CosmicOS (system76, hardware company, funded operating system development) and Gnome (charity, mostly volunteer)
The first has customers, the second does not.
If the goal is Fedora, then the measure of success must be Fedora based businesses that invest in it's development. Or user unions, if such a thing can be constructed. I mean they have channel control, they just refuse to use it, like most hobby linux distros.
Oh I am all in favour of donations to support the devs, and if necessary users forming a non-profit co-operative society and hiring the dev with the collective funds.
But if you see sometimes devs who do this for hobby are not interested in working like this for them it doesn't matter if project gets bigger market share. Sometimes devs do want their software to be popular but when it comes to support then they turn in to just a volunteer doing this for hobby and you should use it or leave it just like a gift. The extra responsibility of community management is a burden to them.
Using open source software does not entitle you to a vote on the direction of the project. The gift you've received is the software itself and the freedom of use granted by the license.
@raghukamath @doctormo I actually agree a lot with DHH on this. Which again puts things a little bit in conflict with the most “ideal” view of what free software is.
Either way I like having the chance to get input from you guys on this ideas, it is always enriching and entertaining to discuss this stuff 😄
No, not donations. Donations go to charities in order to help *other people*.
If you want to fund software that you yourself use, that's called investing, NOT donating. There is nothing optional about your own self interests, either you are wise enough to invest or abusive enough to assume other people will pay for you.
Though we in Foss are very dysfunctional about organizing our relationships. Which is why there is such confusion.
Veronica Explains
in reply to Veronica Explains • • •Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Veronica Explains • • •Besides; the statement is problematic by what it doesn't say:
"Try Linux and become not just a beta tester for a resource strapped desktop software commune, but also your own sys-admin with no friends, neighbours or even local businesses who can help you if things go wrong and a nagging sense of doubt as you profoundly strike out on your own against what your society tells you is normal."
"Would you like to know more?"
raghukamath
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to raghukamath • • •@raghukamath
Oh I don't tell users that.
I just ask that they be Patreons, or private contractors, or be my best mate from long ago. You know, some sort of relationship.
A lot of foss users really need to step up and start paying their way. Not just for the complaints, but also because the economic market of free software suffers from having to drag around so many free loaders and it hurts to have to call that out.
Juank Prada Art
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •@doctormo @raghukamath I think is kind of an unsolved problem within the idea of Free Software?
This might get too philosophical but a free software user is entitled to request something? What would be the “price” to pay for this request? Money? Commitment to the project? Does this “exchange” keep the project “free” (in the ‘libre’ type of meaning) ?
Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •@juankprada @raghukamath
Can a person request something from another person? That depends on their relationship.
Can a person ask of a project? No, there's nothing to ask. You might as well ask for a cup of tea from a wall. What you need are human beings with relationships to each other.
A project is not a corporation where the customers pay nothing but still get their hearts desires. A project is just a social club with some intense fans.
You can buy a relationship, but you don't have to.
Juank Prada Art
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •@doctormo @raghukamath
This is an interesting take. And it’s definitely aligned to what the article says.
At the end the hierarchy is the ultimate form of control. In which part of the hierarchy you are determines how much control you can impose upon the project (in other words, being the creator, someone actively contributing with code, bug fixer, docs writer , end user, are all positions in the hierarchy)
Who you are friends with impacts equally
raghukamath
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •Yes you summed it up nicely, free software project is a social club. And who gets to enter the club is decided by the club owner.
I agree users should not be entitled to ask for things that they are not paying for. But then when something solves their problem today they would pay for that solution which will be within their budget it can proprietary. In free software world a donation or investment may or may not get them what they want. Atleast on the proprietary side they get some bot to talk to them nicely and gather feedback, although on that side profit is the motive. Both side need money so in the end there is no community or social good. A user has to vote with their money so why not be pragmatic and go with the thing that solves their issues rather than chasing ideals of people who do not care for them.
For example do you expect an artist to code a wayland compositor to get the features that they depend on. Funding it would also need huge amount of money. And even if you have money there must be someone willing to work on it. And even if they take time and learn
... show moreYes you summed it up nicely, free software project is a social club. And who gets to enter the club is decided by the club owner.
I agree users should not be entitled to ask for things that they are not paying for. But then when something solves their problem today they would pay for that solution which will be within their budget it can proprietary. In free software world a donation or investment may or may not get them what they want. Atleast on the proprietary side they get some bot to talk to them nicely and gather feedback, although on that side profit is the motive. Both side need money so in the end there is no community or social good. A user has to vote with their money so why not be pragmatic and go with the thing that solves their issues rather than chasing ideals of people who do not care for them.
For example do you expect an artist to code a wayland compositor to get the features that they depend on. Funding it would also need huge amount of money. And even if you have money there must be someone willing to work on it. And even if they take time and learn and code it themselves who knows it will be accepted or not. So what should artists do in such scenario?
Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to raghukamath • • •@raghukamath @juankprada
Someone is paying that huge amount of money.
One of the criticisms of #Wayland is that it taxed resource strapped projects up and down the stack and they didn't even get a vote in having their time and money sucked away. Wayland was done to them.
That's an organization problem. We don't know our constituency, we don't know our suppliers, we don't offer service honestly. It's all a bit of a mess.
It can be fixed though.
Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •@raghukamath @juankprada
What should an artist do?
Form a relationship with people who they trust, who invest in that area. If there is nobody, demand it. Demand to pay to have issues fixed and complain about the lack of paid for services available for that area.
The market will grow if there's demand. But first users have to recognise their role in demanding to pay for their free software.
Juank Prada Art
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •@doctormo @raghukamath
Paying for a feature is a bit too much for an end user.
Developing a feature usually requires more time and effort than what paying the next proprietary software license may cost
An end user won’t pay 500 usd (a not so huge weekly software developer salary) to get one week worth of work from the projects maintainer. If that’s the case he would pay the proprietary software license and continue with his life
Juank Prada Art
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •@doctormo @raghukamath
Also The project maintainer may not want to work on that feature even if paid, so money is not going to entitle enyone to request anything.
I think the only way for somwone to obtain something from the project is to align with the project goals and actively contribute with code. If not, you are on your own
Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •@juankprada @raghukamath
Correct.
It will require a union of users acting in concert. This is easier to do when the project is providing the right kind of investment invitation (see blender)
We shouldn't be shy to recognise just what an awful change to the way software development works we are thinking about when we talk about Free Software.
It's awesome, it's much more effective, but it's a bastard to organise around. Well, until we develop new social technologies ofc.
Juank Prada Art
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •@doctormo @raghukamath I’m not that aware of how blender has achieved what they have achieved. I find it amazing as blender is actually considered industry standard already (even if it’s not the most used software in the 3D industry)
Maybe other projects should check what blender did, but that also requires project owners to humble down and recognize that maybe the way they are handling their project is not the best (which in itself it’s a massive task)
Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •@juankprada @raghukamath
Ton took the project seriously, and took the business seriously. You can't make an effective project without an effective business plan.
Blender has an effective business plan and has been taking it's economic responsibilities seriously.
Other projects can do this. Krita is on it's way, so is Godot. Inkscape is restrained by it's internal politics and Gimp seems hammered by the Gnome foundation. But even there things are changing.
Join my Patreon for more wisdom 😜
Juank Prada Art
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •These projects you mention are very specific in their user base, and I fess it makes it a little more easy than something like Fedora project or Debian, or Opensuse, where many people use their “producr” for varied reasons and purposes. (Krita is pretty much used for digital drawing so mostly artists will use it), A Linux distribution has developers (the majority), sysadmins, students, artists, etc, etc… They are all “general purpose”
Juank Prada Art
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •@juankprada @raghukamath
Correct. A single large investor (google, Microsoft, Red Hat) no matter how altruistic or inattentive to their employees activities are going to have misaligned goals with actual users.
Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •@raghukamath
There's a big difference between CosmicOS (system76, hardware company, funded operating system development) and Gnome (charity, mostly volunteer)
The first has customers, the second does not.
If the goal is Fedora, then the measure of success must be Fedora based businesses that invest in it's development. Or user unions, if such a thing can be constructed. I mean they have channel control, they just refuse to use it, like most hobby linux distros.
raghukamath
in reply to Martin Owens :inkscape: • • •Oh I am all in favour of donations to support the devs, and if necessary users forming a non-profit co-operative society and hiring the dev with the collective funds.
But if you see sometimes devs who do this for hobby are not interested in working like this for them it doesn't matter if project gets bigger market share. Sometimes devs do want their software to be popular but when it comes to support then they turn in to just a volunteer doing this for hobby and you should use it or leave it just like a gift. The extra responsibility of community management is a burden to them.
https://world.hey.com/dhh/open-source-is-neither-a-community-nor-a-democracy-606abdab this is good read.
In most foss software users are not in control of the direction of the software the so called BDFL are.
Open source is neither a community nor a democracy
world.hey.comJuank Prada Art
in reply to raghukamath • • •@raghukamath @doctormo I actually agree a lot with DHH on this. Which again puts things a little bit in conflict with the most “ideal” view of what free software is.
Either way I like having the chance to get input from you guys on this ideas, it is always enriching and entertaining to discuss this stuff 😄
Martin Owens :inkscape:
in reply to Juank Prada Art • • •@juankprada @raghukamath
No, not donations. Donations go to charities in order to help *other people*.
If you want to fund software that you yourself use, that's called investing, NOT donating. There is nothing optional about your own self interests, either you are wise enough to invest or abusive enough to assume other people will pay for you.
Though we in Foss are very dysfunctional about organizing our relationships. Which is why there is such confusion.