Active Topics

 


Page 2 of 5 1 2 34 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
marxian's Avatar
marxian is offline marxian
2016-06-09 , 12:41
Posts: 2,448 | Thanked: 9,523 times | Joined on Aug 2010 @ Wigan, UK
#11
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.
__________________
'Men of high position are allowed, by a special act of grace, to accomodate their reasoning to the answer they need. Logic is only required in those of lesser rank.' - J K Galbraith

My website

GitHub
 
gerbick
2016-06-09 , 15:38
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#12
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.
 
pichlo's Avatar
pichlo is offline pichlo
2016-06-10 , 12:22
Posts: 6,453 | Thanked: 20,983 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#13
Originally Posted by marxian View Post
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.
OK, fair enough.

if you are simply going to say that abandoning a project due to the profit motive is justified
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!
__________________
Русский военный корабль, иди нахуй!
 
marxian's Avatar
marxian is offline marxian
2016-06-10 , 13:23
Posts: 2,448 | Thanked: 9,523 times | Joined on Aug 2010 @ Wigan, UK
#14
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.
__________________
'Men of high position are allowed, by a special act of grace, to accomodate their reasoning to the answer they need. Logic is only required in those of lesser rank.' - J K Galbraith

My website

GitHub
 
gerbick
2016-06-10 , 13:44
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#15
Originally Posted by marxian View Post
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.
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.
 
pichlo's Avatar
pichlo is offline pichlo
2016-06-10 , 13:58
Posts: 6,453 | Thanked: 20,983 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#16
Originally Posted by marxian View Post
It's not a case of 'scew the common good', it's a case of 'the common good is better served by moving on'.
And it's the provider of X who decides that, right? Not the users.

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.
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".
__________________
Русский военный корабль, иди нахуй!
 
pichlo's Avatar
pichlo is offline pichlo
2016-06-12 , 08:01
Posts: 6,453 | Thanked: 20,983 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#17
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.
__________________
Русский военный корабль, иди нахуй!
 
mikecomputing is offline mikecomputing
2016-06-12 , 09:10
Posts: 3,464 | Thanked: 5,107 times | Joined on Feb 2010 @ Gothenburg in Sweden
#18
All I am saying is PHP is 0xD15EA5E
__________________
Keep safe and healthy
 
juiceme is offline juiceme
2016-06-13 , 04:47
Community Council | Posts: 4,920 | Thanked: 12,867 times | Joined on May 2012 @ Southerrn Finland
#19
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
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.
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.
 
pichlo's Avatar
pichlo is offline pichlo
2016-06-13 , 05:44
Posts: 6,453 | Thanked: 20,983 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#20
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.
__________________
Русский военный корабль, иди нахуй!
 
Reply
Page 2 of 5 1 2 34 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top