21–30 of 329 posts
I’m running a super simple translation management system where people can manage, host, auto-translate their translation files. How I supposed to run my app without subscriptions? In last 30 days, I transferred over 280 GB of translation data from my service to end-users around the word. Should I tell DeepL, Google and AWS that they should offer me their services for free or what? EDIT: I apologize if this sounds too…
It just means that you don't own the software that you run. Always having to have an account and sign in and pay the subscription tax otherwise you lose access to it. Now with games becoming digital, if you break their 'terms of service' they can lock and ban your account; taking your 'digital' games away or even locking the console. (Unless you paid for the physical version.)
This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money, there needs to be a way to rectify that gap between the consumer and maintainer. At one point we did so by paying for an initial version of software, and then paying for updates. Now that we don’t do that, but…
I of course understand your point that software developers need to pay rent, but i'm interested in exploring other possibilities, such as non-profits gathering donations to pay for development/UX (like framasoft does).
Now, the same problem applies to all kinds of workers, from bakers to carpenters. If we take a look at the wider picture, why would anyone have to pay for rent and food? Wouldn't we all be better off if we did what we loved and shared unappreciated tasks more equally so that money doesn't get involved?
It seems like we have a "these people are not getting paid enough to pay for basic survival while doing their critical job" discussion every other week.
And yes, it is mostly the cost of convenience. For example, I manage my own server not because it's cheaper (which it is), but because I don't need to pay extra $50 a month to get a "managed" experience.
Same goes for very mundane tasks like image compression. You can pay some company to do it on your behalf, or you can go to GitHub and grab a fully functional library to compress 1,000 photos in an instant.
> Microsoft has used its dominant position to charge for MS Office in perpetuity You can still buy a definitive, noncloud, without subscription of MS Office, and they still release it (there is a 2021 edition).
Actually, having this plus using something like Confluence for internal documents is quite appealing.
That being said I believe the SaaS loophole plays a big part in this, a lot of code that is out there today would have to be re-written to be sold in a traditional model and still be compliant with copyleft software licenses and usually this is not mentioned in these discussions.
[1] https://www.whitesourcesoftware.com/resources/blog/the-saas-...
[2] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11467/can-i-u...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a large part of the problem is that so much software (like Office) is turning into a service when it doesn’t need to be.
I think a large part of the problem is that so much software (like Office) is turning into a service when it doesn’t need to be. One significant advantage of SaaS over traditional download-and-run-and-pay-for-updates apps is the fact that everyone is always on the same version. In a large organisation, and across organisational boundaries, working around people using different versions of things is an incredibly inef…
This sort of began when we all got the impression that software should be free, or that we pay a low price once and get indefinite free upgrades. Given that developers need to be paid, and resources cost money, there needs to be a way to rectify that gap between the consumer and maintainer. At one point we did so by paying for an initial version of software, and then paying for updates. Now that we don’t do that, but…
But you're now getting the worst of both worlds. It was not uncommon back in the day you could buy a copy of the software which was bundled with the source code. Now you have to pay and you don't have the source code. You're just trapped into an ecosystem you have no control over. I of course understand your point that software developers need to pay rent, but i'm interested in exploring other possibilities, such as…