OwnCloud's Collapse
 

http://www.cio.com/article/3079866/o...-collapse.html

https://twitter.com/fkarlitschek/sta...03779155591168

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Thanks, I had followed this topic since 2 weeks ago. I was already getting uneasy back when they changed repository and moved calendar and lots of other stuff around.

Hopefully, Nextcloud will pass a better path. Would miss the possiblity to have a personal cloud.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Mostly Good News, I think.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Well it is news to me but hardly a surprise. Welcome to Abandonwareland, Mr Owncloud! You are in a good company. Gnome 2, GTK, Open Office, the list is just too long to continue. All abandoned the moment something "better" (in most cases, just "newer") came along.

The moral of the story? You have two options. Leave it to the professionals (that is, people who do it for money) or do it yourself. People who do it for the common good, whatever that may be this month, are just too keen to leave at the drop of a hat.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

I would not put it so pessimistically :D

How I see it; there's a guy (or team) that has a wonderful idea of a new cloud framework, and they would like both to make money with it and keep it open source simultaneously.
So, they team up with some VC from Silicon Valley and form a company to productize their thing, creating a also an open Community version. The company side is set up to provide paid support to corporate entities that want to have the goodies and pay for it.
The developers want to make their baby perfect, they have lots of ideas how to enhance it but the moneybags don't want to hear about that at all, they just want to sell a dropbox replacement gizmo.
The new exiting stuff gets brewed in the Community Version, and the Coporate version starts to lag back... Finally the developers just decide to quit the company 'cos it's boring and backward.

All is OK, nothing lost there really.

Well, after that happens the VC's notice that the promising startup is just a marketing doozy leftover, all the talent leaked away. So they poull the plug, just as well.

Still, nothing's lost, the developers are happily spinning the new stuff with a new name. It just is better and more beautiful than the last one.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Now, instead of using something with a name made up of a meaningless word and a meaningless buzzword, we can use something with a name made up of two meaningless buzzwords! And the world rejoiced.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

And what did I say different?

Nothing lost, except continuity, customers' data and confidence.

Of course supporting your existing product is boring. Of course everyone wants to move on to something newer and more beautiful than the last one. But releasing a popular product brings some moral obligations. Moving on to something more beautiful every other week is exactly what gives Open Source a bad name.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

It's always a good idea to leave it to the professionals if you want long-term support. Speaking of which, how's that PR 1.4 coming along, or did you switch to CSSU provided by people who do it for the common good?

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

+1 Ahh, My Thoughts Exactly!

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Almost touché. Almost. Except you are forgetting the "do it yourself" part of my sentence.

I am sure you can provide one such example for every ten examples I can give you. And I concede that yes, there are exceptions both ways.

But look at the most common reasons for abandoning projects. Why are commercial product abandoned? There are usually two reasons: a lack of resources and a lack of commercial success. Both are justifiable reasons IMO. Maemo is a typical example of the latter.

Why are Open Source projects abandoned? Again two main reasons: something new and more exciting came along (Unity, Gnome 3, Wayland, QML) and politics including personal disagreements (Open vs Libre Office and now Own Clown). None of which is excusable in the eye of the customer.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

No, I could give you (at least) ten examples for every ten examples you give me, because abandoning products that don't make enough money (not neccessarily a loss, just less than the opportunity cost of not moving on to something else) is a matter of routine in business, especially in this area. Of course, if you are simply going to say that abandoning a project due to the profit motive is justified, then there is no point.

OwnCloud wasn't closed because of politics, it was closed because the banks were worried that they might not get their money back.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

I would feign surprise; however my biggest issue is once something like this becomes an option, far too often is it abandoned.

That is not how you build trust.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

OK, fair enough.

Yes, I am. For a very simple reason: honesty. Business says, "I do X to make money". It does not pretend to do X out of altruistic motives. Making money on X is always the implied condition. If business does not make enough money on X (or, as you say, thinks it can make more on Y), it tries Y. For the customer, buying X always carries that inherent risk and the customer should understand it.

Compare it with, "I do X for the common good". The only implied condition I see there is the common good bit. It implies that I may stop doing X if it is no longer for the common good. But hey, I see a more exciting Y coming along! Screw X and the common good!

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

It's not a case of 'scew the common good', it's a case of 'the common good is better served by moving on'. In such cases, the 'more exciting' thing did not just 'come along' it was typically developed by the same people that developed the thing that it replaces. On top of that, you are still free to use the old thing.

The problem with your logic is that, in most of the cases you cite (Nokia/Digia/The Qt Company, Oracle, Canonical), these were professionals that decided to abandon certain projects/technologies.

Lastly, I don't see how anyone has the right to complain about non-commercial FOSS no longer being supported, when anyone is free to fork the old project, and the people responsible were working for free. It's just self-entitled whining.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Sure they can fork the project. However it rarely equates to being supported for a long time. The perceived whine is because of just that; it will invariably end in disappointment and a search for a replacement as opposed to a very small, dedicated group continuing to support that fork.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

And it's the provider of X who decides that, right? Not the users.

Firstly, I am not complaining. I am pointing it out. If I were complaining, I would scream, "Oh no, how could you they that? It's a crime!" Instead, I shrug and say, "What did you expect?"

Secondly, that "why don't you do it yourself" mantra is really getting old. If you want FOSS to really, and I mean really succeed, you need to get rid of that mindset. Otherwise it will forever remain to be perceived as "keep out, geeks only".

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Sorry about coming back to this contentious topic. I just wanted to add one more thing that's kept bothering me about this "it's free, so put up and shut up" argument for a long time, but I could not find simple enough words to express what exactly it was that bothered me.

It is as simple as this. If you use that argument, you are essentially saying, "it's worth the money you paid for it".

If even the advocates of FOSS use that argument, they unwittingly hand ammunition to their opponents. And reinforce the notion among the common populace, already concerned about the lack of support, that FOSS is worthless.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

All I am saying is PHP is 0xD15EA5E

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

I do understand your mindset, at least partly.

However that is the nature of software, and it's not just FOSS that behaves the same way; also commercial-and-paid-a-long-penny SW behaves like this too!

Consider MS Office, or even Windows itself; There are new versions coming out that you just have to update to, no matter if you'd just be happy with the current feature set and functionality. The vendor adds new features and removes the ones you'd want and need, and never asks you if you'd like that...

With commercial SW you have even less options than with FOSS; if you do not update sooner or later your system no longer receives updates at all; you are left with half-working system that is no longer compatible with anything else and is vulnerable to various attacks.

With FOSS you at least have the possibility to do something about it or to pay someone else to do it; If you want to run a really old piece of SW on your newer environment it still is possible to get it running there, the older toolchain still exists.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Yes, juiceme, you are absolutely correct. I conceded a few posts ago that both sides suffer the same problem. My only objections are:
1) FOSS pretends to be moral whereas in reality it is just as selfish as business. (It is a bit like Communism. The idea is nice but the reality is somehow different. And both FOSS and Communism blame business for their own problems ;))
2) The "put up and shut up" argument.

I am not saying that FOSS is bad. I do not know how to get that message across. After all, I consider myself part of it. All I am trying to say that it could be better. All it needs is a bit of reflection.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

+1 and 10 chars! :D

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

i have faith in frank and jos, my owncloud box will become a nextcloud box in good time.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

I do not have the same level of faith; but I do hope that you are right.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Quickly pointing out once again that the 'free' in 'free software' stands for freedom, not price. Thanks, English!

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Freedom of what exactly? We already have freedom of choice, freedom of doing our own solution(s)... freedom seems to be somewhat overused and oft misunderstood by software vendors/programmers.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

But do read this, because those descriptions are short, and many people seem to interpret the 'you's as referring to the person reading the 'four freedoms' rather than the collective entity of humans, and so mistakenly believe they "don't need" free software and free software "isn't needed" because they don't know how or don't feel the need to take advantage of the freedom(s) it provides.

OT: English may be an easy language thanks to its tiny vocabulary, but trying to accurately convey anything that goes beyond the absolute basics is quite difficult.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

I don't know about you but someone imposing his view of freedom on me does not strike me as freedom.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

That's an odd position to take, in the case of SW freedom at least.

Politically, well yes we'd be on a bit thin ground there; historically it has not been possible to define "freedom" so that all people agree on the definition and how to apply it to real life situations but SW-wise it is pretty clear-cut IMHO.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

He just quoted Stallman's take on freedom.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Yes, I know. That was exactly my point. Stallman is a dictator, not a freedom activist like some people like portraying him.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

A dictator that peddles "freedom"... I think I have the concept for my next book.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

You need to bear in mind to whom is the freedom as defined by GNU GPL really attributed to. @nthn actually put it quite nicely here;

What it boils down to, is that your "personal freedom" is limited a bit in the name of common good here, so that the multitude of humankind will benefit. In the context of "Free software" it is not you that is free, it is the piece of SW that is free and you are not allowed to take away the freedom of the SW.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

A free piece of software. Great. In the name of what shall we give up our freedom next? Bricks?

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Hey, cheers to your bricksies! :D

I kind of think you are arguing on principle now.
Just for the sake of argument, do you believe people should not be restrained from excersizng some of their freedoms, when the said freedoms could be harmful to others? (I do think so)
There are always exceptions, as for example in organized warfare you are allowed to kill certain people even as it is usually forbidden.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Thanks. Cheering up is definitely what I need now :(

Of course I am! I admit that I came from the viewpoint of a slight misconception and was reacting to that. My view on all that "free software" bulls**t was that it was about your freedom to do what you will with it. Use it, copy it, modify it, whatever. The software itself is a thing, what freedom can it have?

My choice of bricks as an example was not random: bricks are most commonly used as building blocks for something else. You buy a brick and you can use it for whatever you like (OK, there are restrictions, you cannot smash someone's head with one without facing consequences).

In contrast, Stallman's idea is that you cannot use a brick for building just anything. You can only use it if all the other bricks are made from the same earth and you also publish a complete blueprint of the building including all the wiring, plumbing and furniture, all of which has nothing to do with the brick. That is not freedom, that is dictatorship.

I do not see how the brick's personal freedom comes into this.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Good point, however I think in this case it is about the bricks and not the house; when you use "free bricks" you can make your own bricks better or different than the original but you have to share your improved brick receipe with other people.

The house you build with the bricks however, that is yours to use as you feel fit; you do not need to share the blueprints with anyone if you so decide. (though I of course would like you to!) :)

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

This is a sentence I thought I would never have read in my lifetime.

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

"Liberty had its nose and both hands chipped long ago, but the dictator insisted on having the statuette on his desk. She was very wieldy". I'm afraid I have read this book back in '80s ;)

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

Oh my. What book is this quote? Quick Google search is failing me...

Re: OwnCloud's Collapse
 

It's "Synteza" ("Synthesis") by Maciej Wojtyszko; for what I know it was never translated (the above is my attempt). Teen SF from '80s...