Plutus, Haskell, Nix, Purescript, Swift/Kotlin. laser-focused on FP: formality, purity, and totality; repulsed by pragmatic, unsafe, “move fast and break things” approaches


AC24 1DE5 AE92 3B37 E584 02BA AAF9 795E 393B 4DA0

  • 0 Posts
  • 58 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle







  • I very much agree that the social change route is for the best. However, being a cynical old man that has watched Google and others lay waste to the open internet time and again, I guarantee that we’ll have to go with the FOSS hounding route unless some new viable alternative pops up. Thanks for the spirited discussion! I think we both, in the end, want the same thing.


  • Fair enough in the strawman thing.

    Anyway: Either we enact social change or we literally do the thing that you said: we need to normalize users feeling obligated to pay for FOSS software.

    Actually: IMO, we DO need to normalize people understanding that the reason their software doesn’t suck is because the dev has integrity and hasn’t sold out to corporate interests. They should be reminded of that fact because the pull of greed is PERVASIVE.

    The way I see it,

    We have two options:

    A.) fix the broken FOSS system to properly fund projects that eschew monetary gains and the stockpiling and hiding intellectual property in the interest of the sanctity of these technologies.

    B.) Normalize end users feeling obligated to pay.


  • demesisx@infosec.pubtoLinux@lemmy.mlWhat if I paid for all my free software?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t personally support badgering users. I’m talking about the compromises built into most of our projects that are only NECESSARY because our social programs have been scrapped.

    In a sufficiently advanced socialist society, FOSS projects would be funded the same as roads. We don’t live in that system. I wish we did. We live in a system where Meta, Google, and Amazon have gigantic government contracts and they use that money to pay their devs to compromise open protocols. The reality is that indie devs with true integrity (like the ones who built the platform were having this discussion on right now) need more funding than they’re getting. I appreciate them not hounding people for money but that doesn’t eliminate the need for it…

    to create a strawman argument about being “hounded” is disingenuous at best.


  • demesisx@infosec.pubtoLinux@lemmy.mlWhat if I paid for all my free software?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I hate this argument even more passionately. Since austerity has been eating away at all social programs…particularly ones that involve technology (which should be the correct avenue for funding FOSS software projects), we must, as citizens, financially incentivize software developers to avoid the monetization traps that exist.

    Case in point: I’ve recently been working on a way of federating inventory. I’ll let you guess how viable that project is without some way of COMPLETELY UNDERMINING THE SOCIAL GOOD OF SUCH A PROJECT SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAVE TO PAY RENT AND EAT FOOD WHILE WORKING ON IT. I’ll let you guess how many different ways that I will likely need to compromise the sanctity of my vision (which should basically be an addition to the open pub/sub protocol) just to make working on it something that could support me. If my project were funded by governments and non-commercial entities, I’d be fine. But the reality is: these kinds of technologies are often compromised because of this same bullremoved line of reasoning.