101–110 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Docker was only phased out in red hat distros because they don't like it and want to push Podman. Others still have docker packaged in their repos.
It's not in Debian and their wiki straight up directs you to podman with a nice big scary warning about dockers root issue. https://wiki.debian.org/Docker Docker is dyeing on linux podman will be the only one that remains.
I'd be more interested in the race to build a business model that works with open source and venture funding, myself. A grand unified theory of software goods funding, if you will.
Why specifically venture funding?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shift to open core was ten years ago. Open core failed and is being replaced with pseudo open source.
Open core only became a word people said 10 years ago, it's on the rise as a business model from what I can tell. Do you have suggestions for alternative funding/support models? What is open core being replaced by from your perspective?
Personally I prefer the Adam Jacob trademark business model but it's not that proven and it can't be retrofitted.
Why don’t we try to fix the “cannot be used for bezos yacht”-licenses instead of shunning the numerous companies of especially databases who want to do good in a meaningful way? Source available is good, better than proprietary which is what we get with aws, but still not enough. People are legitimately afraid of rug pulls, like sneaking in essential features into paid offerings. I think a lot of the skepticism comes…
The best idea I've come up with is a license which only grants the rights to a natural person to use the software otherwise it is identical to the MIT, GPL or AGPL, whatever your cup of tea is. If you're a corporation then you need to buy a license.
I'd be more interested in the race to build a business model that works with open source and venture funding, myself. A grand unified theory of software goods funding, if you will.
Do you need a faster compiler, or a better OS, or some cluster operator just to get your widget factory working? Don't build those in house, instead find others with the same problems and create an open source project together to work on them.
But don't try to sell open source software. It's essentially impossible to do that, it has been tried time and time again and success is rare, and huge success is basically unheard of (RedHat being probably the one single exception).
I'd be more interested in the race to build a business model that works with open source and venture funding, myself. A grand unified theory of software goods funding, if you will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not in Debian and their wiki straight up directs you to podman with a nice big scary warning about dockers root issue. https://wiki.debian.org/Docker Docker is dyeing on linux podman will be the only one that remains.
It's in Debian: https://packages.debian.org/sid/docker.io
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. A lot of that work is sponsored.
The vast majority. Only 7.7% is unpaid: https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel/
Developers need a salary to pay the bills. Let's say that covers the first 40 hours of the week.
Those who are searching for significance outside their day job offer free labor as their "hobby". Maybe 10 hours a week?
For projects that want to move forward with some velocity it makes sense to make some of that development into paid day-jobs.
As projects get very large, there's a fair amount of overhead in just "keeping up". That erodes the 10 hours quickly. Further reducing the time to contribute.
So where is all this cash to pay employees coming from? Certainly not end users (as anyone who's tried funding an OSS project from users knows.) No, it comes from commercial companies (MS, Amazon et al) or venture capital.
This is the cognitive dissonance that underpins OSS development. The very people OSS treat as the "enemy" are the people funding OSS in the first place. As much as say RMS rails against big tech, Linux and the rich Linux economy system only exist at the level they do -because- of big tech.
Of course, I painting with a broad brush, and there are exceptions, but the point remains. It's turtles all the way down, and those turtles are not funded by users.
Why don’t we try to fix the “cannot be used for bezos yacht”-licenses instead of shunning the numerous companies of especially databases who want to do good in a meaningful way? Source available is good, better than proprietary which is what we get with aws, but still not enough. People are legitimately afraid of rug pulls, like sneaking in essential features into paid offerings. I think a lot of the skepticism comes…
I think you'll find that the vast vast majority of us don't care about the whole "cannot be used for bezos yacht" problem when we contribute to free software. I contribute with no expectation of monitory gain and absolutely zero desire for some random foundation or company that's part or almost always created later to make any money. If some contributors want to make money become consultants the "amazon problem" isn'…
I'd be more interested in the race to build a business model that works with open source and venture funding, myself. A grand unified theory of software goods funding, if you will.
Such a business model exists and it's extremely well proven, and it powers the majority of major open source software: build a proprietary product or service, and open source any component that is more of a cost than it is a unique selling point of your system. Do you need a faster compiler, or a better OS, or some cluster operator just to get your widget factory working? Don't build those in house, instead find othe…
Sure, it is the commoditize your complement strategy [0]. But that doesn't help get complex open source products to market, it only helps with tooling.
Maybe you are right and there's no way to directly pair the freedoms of OSS with the capitalism of VC backed startup.
0: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/