I agree. I don’t know why people believe Apple and their privacy fasaude. There is plenty of evidence to show they’re a monopoly on the data to make all the money for themselves, as well as closed source means you can’t trust or verify anything they claim.
We should have more “source available, but you still need to pay for it” licenses
Best of both worlds, the company still gets to sell a product, and we can inspect the source, or even submit PR’s (and maybe get a little kickback (but that’s pie in the sky))
Granted, it’s super easy to remove the license restrictions with the source available
Also, many opensource services can be selfhosted for free, while the company/developer gets they payment via donations and/or charging a support service fee to enterprises/people.
That and exposure to the homelab community which in turn can lead to future implementation in enterprise.
Only in term of security/privacy. Not control and freedom. And without freedom to modify, share and reuse software we are in a straight path to the lack of privacy again.
Yeah, the downvotes are unsurprising, but at least I don’t see a reason to downvote on an idea unless it is inherently an intentional insupt or something along those line.
I don’t think your idea is the best, but it is an idea, and that alone makes it worth exploring, as you mentioned. My disagreement with your idea comes precisely by your point. There are plenty of people that do not move away from Windows or Mac precisely because the software they “need” is not available. If these companies made their software available on some Linux distros, there’s a very good chance some of their “hostages” will still pay for them. DaVinci resolve is good example of this.
Fairly decent advice in my opinion
Except for the statements that Apple is a better option for privacy. Its not.
Any OS or app that is not opensource code can’t be trusted.
I agree. I don’t know why people believe Apple and their privacy fasaude. There is plenty of evidence to show they’re a monopoly on the data to make all the money for themselves, as well as closed source means you can’t trust or verify anything they claim.
We should have more “source available, but you still need to pay for it” licenses
Best of both worlds, the company still gets to sell a product, and we can inspect the source, or even submit PR’s (and maybe get a little kickback (but that’s pie in the sky))
Granted, it’s super easy to remove the license restrictions with the source available
That’s what donations are for.
Also, many opensource services can be selfhosted for free, while the company/developer gets they payment via donations and/or charging a support service fee to enterprises/people.
That and exposure to the homelab community which in turn can lead to future implementation in enterprise.
Only in term of security/privacy. Not control and freedom. And without freedom to modify, share and reuse software we are in a straight path to the lack of privacy again.
This was just an idea, I don’t understand why the downvotes. Just counter if you don’t agree.
The downvotes aren’t surprising; it’s not a very popular idea
I still think it’s an idea worth exploring, though
Businesses won’t support Linux if they can’t sell something, and it gives us access to the code
Yeah, the downvotes are unsurprising, but at least I don’t see a reason to downvote on an idea unless it is inherently an intentional insupt or something along those line.
I don’t think your idea is the best, but it is an idea, and that alone makes it worth exploring, as you mentioned. My disagreement with your idea comes precisely by your point. There are plenty of people that do not move away from Windows or Mac precisely because the software they “need” is not available. If these companies made their software available on some Linux distros, there’s a very good chance some of their “hostages” will still pay for them. DaVinci resolve is good example of this.