Distro developer forecasts a future without "liberty" if you don't pay for FOSS crapware

[DFS]

<quote>
We believe that if we want to see the world of open source software grow
and compete at the same level as closed source software, we should
encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it’ll be
underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and
advertising. And nobody wants that future. We don’t want to lose our
liberty in order to maintain a lack of a price tag.
</quote>

http://blog.elementary.io/post/110645528530/payments



Isn't that special?

[Melzzzzz]

He can sell it after all... but this is really pathetic...

[Lloyd Parsons]

Yes, it is very pathetic for someone to get paid for their work.

You are such a moron.

--
Lloyd

[Melzzzzz]

It is not pathetic to get paid for work, it is pathetic how they explain
it....

> You are such a moron.
>

Thanks for compliment.

[Slimer]

The best system is simply a DRM-free one. You pay for software, but you
can copy it and transfer it however you please. It's the one I chose for
my book: buy the eBook and you can print it, put it on whatever device you
please and make copies if you so choose.

The only problem with this kind of approach for software is that the
software itself isn't self-contained. Back in the days of DOS, a program
and all it needed would reside within a directory. All of your Sierra
games would be in C:\Sierra but each game was a subdirectory of it. Move
the directory and you move the entire game. Obviously, this opened up the
door for piracy, but you can't kill piracy no matter what the fuck you do
anyway.

So yeah, an operating system which is paid for but where you can do
whatever the Hell you want with the software you bought makes a lot more
sense than one where everything is free and has to remain free or else
some fat fuck named Stallman will call you unethical.

--
Slimer
Proud "Wintroll"

[Snit]

On 7/7/15, 9:28 AM, in article op.x1ev0...@mastodon.home, "Slimer"

<slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:55:39 -0400, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>> <quote>
>> We believe that if we want to see the world of open source software grow
>> and compete at the same level as closed source software, we should

>> encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise itıll be

>> underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and

>> advertising. And nobody wants that future. We donıt want to lose our

>> liberty in order to maintain a lack of a price tag.
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://blog.elementary.io/post/110645528530/payments
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't that special?
>
> The best system is simply a DRM-free one. You pay for software, but you
> can copy it and transfer it however you please. It's the one I chose for
> my book: buy the eBook and you can print it, put it on whatever device you
> please and make copies if you so choose.
>
> The only problem with this kind of approach for software is that the
> software itself isn't self-contained. Back in the days of DOS, a program
> and all it needed would reside within a directory. All of your Sierra
> games would be in C:\Sierra but each game was a subdirectory of it. Move
> the directory and you move the entire game. Obviously, this opened up the
> door for piracy, but you can't kill piracy no matter what the fuck you do
> anyway.

With OS X, most programs are contained in a single bundle - a folder that
acts like a single file for the general user. In other words, MS Word, to
the general user, is one file. You can move it, rename it, whatever. It
works.

This makes things easy for general users - when you download a program the
"installation" is generally just opening up the downloaded file (a disk
image) which has a simple instruction: drag the single application icon to
the "Applications" folder - and they already have an alias to it.

For advanced users we can have a folder on our desktop (or wherever) of
software we are testing. If we like it, great - plop it in the Apps folder.
If we do not, toss it in the trash.

And if you right-click the bundle you can open it like the folder it really
is and see what is inside of it.

> So yeah, an operating system which is paid for but where you can do
> whatever the Hell you want with the software you bought makes a lot more
> sense than one where everything is free and has to remain free or else
> some fat fuck named Stallman will call you unethical.



--

* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[Slimer]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:35:31 -0400, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:

> On 7/7/15, 9:28 AM, in article op.x1ev0...@mastodon.home, "Slimer"
> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:55:39 -0400, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> We believe that if we want to see the world of open source software
>>> grow
>>> and compete at the same level as closed source software, we should

>>> encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it¹ll be

>>> underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and

>>> advertising. And nobody wants that future. We don¹t want to lose our

OS X's approach was the major reason I went in the direction of Apple's
products in the early 2000s anyway. I really thought that it was better.
Of course, Apple's other limitations are what made me migrate away from
them.

Still, they're a lot more forward-thinking than any of the other
developers.

--
Slimer
Proud "Wintroll"

[Snit]

On 7/7/15, 12:57 PM, in article op.x1e5p...@mastodon.home, "Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:

...

Fair enough. There are pros and cons.

> Still, they're a lot more forward-thinking than any of the other developers.

Yes... and they offer a lot that other environments do not. With the recent
discussion I show this:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/lookup-kids-dictionary>

If you look, there are times it takes Safari longer to come up than it
should - some of the "slowness" you speak of. But the overall workflow is
streamlined. So depending on how you look at it OS X in that video may be a
bit slower than Windows or somewhat faster - both are correct it just
depends on what you are measuring.

[Dr. John Grubor]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Slimer wrote:

> The best system is simply a DRM-free one. You pay for software, but you
> can copy it and transfer it however you please. It's the one I chose for
> my book: buy the eBook and you can print it, put it on whatever device you
> please and make copies if you so choose.

Your book is probably an explanation as to how you keep your head up Snit's ass without suffocating.

Your next one will be about who's fucking your woman while you're busy jerking Snit off.

[Slimer]

The funny thing is that if I HAD written such a book, my writing style is
so good that it would have made more money than any of the Linux
distributions made in their entire existence.

--
Slimer
Proud "Wintroll"

[Snit]

On 7/7/15, 5:07 PM, in article op.x1fha...@mastodon.home, "Slimer"

LOL!

Well played.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
Selling Freemium upgrades.

The guy who wrote the "Video DownloadHelper" (VDH)
extension for FireFox has made US$60 thousand from it.

It's open source and _mostly_ cost free.

It lets you (illegally) download 720p videos, for free.

But, because YouTube streams 1080p video separate from 
the audio, it must be converted into the .MP4 format,
and VDH charges you US$28.50 (once) for that.

Zoom Player (the video player) also makes
money this way (with Freemium and pay versions).
Wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Freemium

[chrisv]

Melzzzzz wrote:

>> <quote>
>> We believe that if we want to see the world of open source software grow
>> and compete at the same level as closed source software, we should
>> encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it’ll be
>> underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and
>> advertising. And nobody wants that future. We don’t want to lose our
>> liberty in order to maintain a lack of a price tag.
>> </quote>
>

>He can sell it after all... but this is really pathetic...

I don't think it's so bad. A bit extreme in its "nobody wants that
future" rhetoric. Of course, the future holds a combination products
that are "paid for" and products that are subsidized by advertizing
and such. FOSS developers are free to encourage others to do what
they feel is best.

--
"(What Micheal Dell said) negates every 'idiotic lie' cola losers have
ever drooled about Microsoft controlling OEMs." - DumFSck, lying
shamelessly

[Ron House]

People are welcome to monetarise any legal way they choose. These people
try to make you feel guilty. I think it misunderstands the reason OSS
works though. I get linux, libreoffice, firefox, lots more, free. I use
it all to write, program, develop websites, and more. I discover that I
"get along" with drupal - also free. And I find bugs and limitations in
drupal, so I fix them and contribute. Now I'm paying for all the free
stuff I got by making it better. Someone else who might use my
contributions then fixes a problem somewhere else, and I benefit. But if
I were doing a major effort to make something better by a quantum leap,
I might have to inveigle people to pay me money, who knows? The whole
thing is honest, so what's to criticise?

--
Ron House
Building Peace: http://peacelegacy.org
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net

[Steve Carroll]

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 7:49:04 PM UTC-6, Ron House wrote:
> On 08/07/15 00:55, DFS wrote:
> > <quote>
> > We believe that if we want to see the world of open source software grow
> > and compete at the same level as closed source software, we should
> > encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it'll be
> > underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and
> > advertising. And nobody wants that future. We don't want to lose our
> > liberty in order to maintain a lack of a price tag.
> > </quote>
> >
> > http://blog.elementary.io/post/110645528530/payments
> >
> >
> >
> > Isn't that special?
> >
> >
>
> People are welcome to monetarise any legal way they choose. These people
> try to make you feel guilty. I think it misunderstands the reason OSS
> works though. I get linux, libreoffice, firefox, lots more, free. I use
> it all to write, program, develop websites, and more. I discover that I
> "get along" with drupal - also free. And I find bugs and limitations in
> drupal, so I fix them and contribute. Now I'm paying for all the free
> stuff I got by making it better. Someone else who might use my
> contributions then fixes a problem somewhere else, and I benefit. But if
> I were doing a major effort to make something better by a quantum leap,
> I might have to inveigle people to pay me money, who knows? The whole
> thing is honest, so what's to criticise?

Nothing, of course... but you need to remember you're talking to a bunch of trolls here :)

Have you built anything with Drupal 8? If so, how smoothly did the VDC team roll Views into core?

[chrisv]

Ron House wrote:

>The whole thing is honest, so what's to criticise?

That dumb fscking troll will take a cheap shot from any angle he can,
man.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the FOSS model of asking for
donations. It gives everyone the freedom to do what they want, which
is great. It's not perfect, but then allowing people to do what they
want to do never is.

--
"Its why they dropped Linux support - all freetard whining with no
contributions." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[-hh]

chrisv wrote:
> Ron House wrote:
>

> >The whole thing is honest, so what's to criticize?

The criticism is coming from the hypocrites who don't
like the honest truth. Case in point:

> That dumb fscking troll will take a cheap shot from any angle
> he can, man.

Classical (and dishonest) "Shoot the Messenger" attempt.

> Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the FOSS model of asking for
> donations. It gives everyone the freedom to do what they want, which
> is great. It's not perfect, but then allowing people to do what they
> want to do never is.

Way to miss the point, which was that the FOSS model is at risk of a
catastrophic failure because the 'center cannot hold' when the status quo
is that there's far too many freeloaders who never pay, essentially because
they're too petty and selfish to think that that honor system applies to them too.


-hh

[JEDIDIAH]

Strange then that it's held so long.

The thing to keep in mind that it's not just Linux here. Free Software is
bigger than that and has been around longer than that. So we're talking 32
years without an implosion. That's as long as any of the visible commercial
OS brands have been around (longer even).

The truth of the matter is that the value of software greatly dwarfs the
cost of developing it. That's part of the whole "information wants to be free
thing". Software doesn't wear out. Solved problems can remain solved
indefinitely.

There are far more users then there are robber baron wannabes.

Constantly paying for the likes of Windows or office is an economic
inefficiency that needs to be fixed and eradicated rather than replicated.

[GreyCloud]

The FOSS model does not facilitate a massive engineering effort to make new
and improved software and also bug elimination and testing. That's where
corporate budgets come into play where the corporate can hire people to do
the job.

[-hh]

JED wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>> Way to miss the point, which was that the FOSS model is at risk of a
>> catastrophic failure because the 'center cannot hold' when the status quo
>> is that there's far too many freeloaders who never pay, essentially because
>> they're too petty and selfish to think that that honor system applies to them too.
>
> Strange then that it's held so long.

Not at all, due to factors already discussed: the "barrier to entry" is virtually zero,
which is the same reason why the crap does not get removed from distribution too.

> The thing to keep in mind that it's not just Linux here. Free Software is
> bigger than that and has been around longer than that.

Oh, well understood, although it also used to be much more Shareware in form.

> So we're talking 32 years without an implosion.

For certain definitions of "implosion". Facts are that the
days of trusting any old App are long since dead due to the rise
of malware Trojans.

> That's as long as any of the visible commercial
> OS brands have been around (longer even).

Only because of the convenient selection of "32 years" to try
to predate Mac OS ... But you forgot that Apple's GUI OS
actually predates 1983, mister pendant.

> The truth of the matter is that the value of software greatly dwarfs the
> cost of developing it. That's part of the whole "information wants to be free
> thing".

If that were true, then Linux wouldn't have had any of the adoption barriers
that chrisv keeps on whining about. And info can try to be free, but only
within the legal constraints of Copyright, etc.

> Software doesn't wear out. Solved problems can remain solved indefinitely.

Clifford Stohl proved that belief to be false over a decade ago. And I could
re-post that old PowerPoint file with a $50 cash reward to prove it yet again:
care to make it into a friendly wager for charity?

> Constantly paying for the likes of Windows or office is an economic
> inefficiency that needs to be fixed and eradicated rather than replicated.

Not if what you wrote above about how the "value of software" bit above is true.
As such, you're contradicting yourself.

-hh

[Tomas]

Ding Ding we have a winner.

[chrisv]

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:

>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the FOSS model of asking for
>>> donations. It gives everyone the freedom to do what they want, which
>>> is great. It's not perfect, but then allowing people to do what they
>>> want to do never is.
>>
>> Way to miss the point,

You only think that I missed the point because I am way out of your
league, intellectually, -highhorse.

>> (snip bullshit and lies)

>
> Strange then that it's held so long.
>
> The thing to keep in mind that it's not just Linux here. Free Software is
>bigger than that and has been around longer than that. So we're talking 32
>years without an implosion. That's as long as any of the visible commercial
>OS brands have been around (longer even).

All of the asshole's whining about "freeloaders who don't pay" could
also apply to commercial software that gets pirated.

The existence of "freeloaders" doesn't change the indisputable fact
that FOSS is a viable business model. The fact that it is surviving
and growing is proof of that.

I don't know why this is so difficult for thick-skulled assholes like
"-hh" to understand.

--
"Thus, we once again see what is so wrong with Linux: the Community's
intolerant bigots and bullies who think that YELLING LOUDER is the way
to attract customers." - lying asshole "-hh"

[Chris Ahlstrom]

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> --
> "Thus, we once again see what is so wrong with Linux: the Community's
> intolerant bigots and bullies who think that YELLING LOUDER is the way
> to attract customers." - lying asshole "-hh"

Yelling louder seemed to work for Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer as they
overhyped their immature "Word" product to customers.

--
Life is difficult because it is non-linear.

[-hh]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:12:40 AM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> > lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
> >>
> >> chrisv wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the FOSS model of asking for
> >>> donations. It gives everyone the freedom to do what they want, which
> >>> is great. It's not perfect, but then allowing people to do what they
> >>> want to do never is.
> >>
> >> Way to miss the point,
>
> You only think that I missed the point because I am way
> out of your league, intellectually, -highhorse.

Unfortunately, the 'intellectual giant' can't even
reach up to the counter of the original statement:

<quote>
We believe that if we want to see the world of open
source software grow and compete at the same level
as closed source software, we should encourage users
to pay for its development; otherwise it'll be
underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor
deals and advertising. And nobody wants that future.
We don't want to lose our liberty in order to maintain
a lack of a price tag.
</quote>

> >> (snip bullshit and lies)
> >
> > Strange then that it's held so long.
> >
> > The thing to keep in mind that it's not just Linux here.
> > Free Software is bigger than that and has been around
> > longer than that. So we're talking 32 years without an
> > implosion. That's as long as any of the visible commercial
> >OS brands have been around (longer even).
>
> All of the asshole's whining about "freeloaders who don't
> pay" could also apply to commercial software that gets pirated.

True, and chrisv does get credit for getting this one right.
However, the losses due to piracy can be (and are) offset
through other means.

> The existence of "freeloaders" doesn't change the
> indisputable fact that FOSS is a viable business model.

Except for the inconvenient fact from the above quote
from the developers at Freya who say that it isn't working.

> The fact that it is surviving and growing is proof of that.

Already also discussed & explained as an irrelevant metric.

> I don't know why this is so difficult for thick-skulled
> assholes like "-hh" to understand.

Because people above your meagre intellect understand that
TANSTAAFL always applies, even if you don't. They're some
of the ones that have that #firstworldproblems of having
to decide which nice car to drive today, rather than to be
stuck with a trashed Ford Fiesta & your basement apartment.


-hh

[DFS]

On 7/13/2015 9:38 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Bill Gates Steve Ballmer "Word" product



"Marti, we don't care about Microsoft and its products here."
Chris "Little Beaver" Ahlstrom, Oct 2013

[DFS]

On 7/13/2015 9:12 AM, shitv wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the FOSS model of asking for
>>>> donations. It gives everyone the freedom to do what they want, which
>>>> is great. It's not perfect, but then allowing people to do what they
>>>> want to do never is.
>>>
>>> Way to miss the point,
>
> You only think that I missed the point because I am way out of your
> league, intellectually, -highhorse.

heh!

-hh makes you look like a 3rd grader. You're an intellectual
lightweight, shithead. You always have been - it's why you constantly
brag about your "superiority".