• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of open source software is written by people working for corporations. Red Hat may have started out as a plucky co-op but it’s now part of IBM. MySQL is written primarily by Oracle. The fact that the source is open doesn’t mean it’s all volunteer work.

    That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a massive transfer of wealth, just that for a lot of it people were paid a fraction of the wealth they created rather than none at all.

    Sidenote: Here’s a good article about how software developers can wage class warfare. Some tips are: Don’t help other people learn things, never write documentation, and make your code as opaque as possible so your boss doesn’t get anything from you for free.

    • Hot SaucermanOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Valve probably stands at the company who has “given back” the most in recent history (making Desktop Linux viable for the first time ever, mostly through gaming), but even Valve has corporate America skeletons in their closet. (Like the only reason they have a decent refund option now is because Australia basically forced them, and they had to change their flash sales for European laws.)

      • dauerstaender@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Valve still is a corporation, decently good at open source, but still a corporation that develops and distributes a lot of closed source software. Like the github ceo once wrote: open source the engine not the car, that’s what drives open source development for them. When many use their software and contribute patches and more importantly report bugs, everyone wins.

        • Hot SaucermanOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t hate Valve, but let’s be real, they’re not adding to Linux out of the goodness of their hearts: They’re doing it to protect their profits because they see that Windows is quickly becoming more closed and has its own Xbox gaming storefront. It isn’t about belief in Linux as a product, it isn’t about improving it for everyone, it’s about improving it enough for gamers so that Steam won’t be eventually locked out of the digital games sales market by Microsoft. They’re basically just buying their way out of the vendor-lock-in of putting their store on someone else’s proprietary operating system.

          I don’t think Linux desktop usage jumping from 1% to nearly 3% equals “everybody wins.” Sounds like to me a lot of fuckin people are still losing. Like 97% of them at least.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see the problem there. If someone is doing a good thing because it is profitable for them to do that good thing that’s fine.

            • Hot SaucermanOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re right, but the thing is most of the time companies do horrible things to boost their profits. Like Unity in the last few days. Valve doing seemingly pro-consumer things to protect their profits is a rarity, and it’s really only a side-effect that there’s consumer benefit. They aren’t doing it to benefit consumers, they’re doing it to preserve their marketplace. It’s a side effect that it gives consumers more options. Valve is an unusually forward-thinking company when it comes to its long-term viability.

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay, I may have misunderstood the intent of your comment. I thought you were saying something like we should be mad at Valve for helping Linux because it helps their profits. It now seems like you were just making sure everyone was aware of the context. Valve has always been one of the companies that is on a pedestal in gamers’ eyes. Like Bethesda prior to Fallout 76 and paid mods/creation club. I agree, we should hold them to the same level of scrutiny of other companies.

              • chocobo13z@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe I want to root for the unprecedentedly forward thinking companies, because it’s like a glimpse of what a lot of companies probably look like in other countries, especially the Nordic countries, that haven’t had a history that led to their governments being able to be used as a tool to stifle competition, unlike the US

          • akulium@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t get what you try to say with your last paragraph. It sounds like you are worried that the poor 97% of Windows and Mac users are losing something because Linux is rising. Which makes absolutely no sense.

            • Solivine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It sounds like they’re implying most people are losing because they use windows and Mac, instead of Linux, which I don’t completely disagree with because of the insane monopoly they have. Just look at all the ads and bloat on windows 11 for a brief example.

              • datavoid
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Computers must suck for the average user. I’d assume most people on this site would have no issue disabling annoyances in Windows. But most people probably just leave the defaults enabled, which is terrible.

                I’ve been watching old episodes of Computer Chronicles lately - it’s amazing how much more user friendly Microsoft products were back in the day.

                • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Enshittification is hitting windows hard these days. Windows 10 was okay in my book. I‘m probably not going to use windows 11. Currently preparing an ubuntu daily driver for operation.

                  But as doctorow said here, we are crawling back to old anti trust standards which we lost. It’s going to take a long time but it’s going.

            • Hot SaucermanOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not the one who said “everybody wins” in regards to private corporations adding to open source projects while also not making clear what people are “winning” from it.

              • akulium@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t get your point at all. I know that you do not say that, but you don’t even have any counter argument.

                • Hot SaucermanOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The point is the claim was “everybody wins.” My point is “everybody” at best is 3% of the population who gives a shit about having control of their own software. No, mostly corporations win. Consumers get some fringe benefits at best. I’m not seeing regular people become multimillionaires simply because they use Linux instead of Windows. Mostly its weird fucking shut-ins.

        • Qvest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t say it’s a complete disservice. They made the Steam Deck. And while it’s just a fancy GUI (Steam in Game Mode or whatever it’s called), that’s exactly what people need for it to become mainstream. Besides, if it wasn’t for Valve’s Proton and Wine, I wouldn’t be using Linux as a daily driver today And they (as far as I know, take this with a grain of salt) pioneered the Handheld gaming space (and before you say Nintendo or PSP. They were different than the Steam Deck or the ROG Ally)

        • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And it’s a dumpster fire unless you devote a ton of time. It’s never been viable as a product to the general public. It’s only recently is become even close for regular users.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think we’d have fewer security problems if we had a tech guild. It would keep unqualified people from becoming sysadmins, for one.

        • Hot SaucermanOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. -Adam Smith

          If you think Guilds would solve security problems instead of just propping up security theater, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Like locksmiths who have produced locks with the same flawed design for six millennia now, and instead of fixing it, they’re still keeping the act and even went after whistleblowers before.

            • Hot SaucermanOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “How did you get in here?”

              “I’m a locksmith, and I’m a locksmith. The unstated part of this joke is that us locksmiths make locks super easy to crack, we just don’t share the details with everybody.”

              A lock is just a suggestion. A determined thief will find a way beyond it.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve seen too many systems left wide open for me not to think we need some way of having actual experts vet people’s resumes and not a bunch of HR people.

            • Hot SaucermanOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t disagree, but a “guild” is not it. Engineers in other disciplines have to actually have “engineering” credentials. Software engineers do not, but it sounds like they probably should considering other engineers are held to standards. The States have their own engineering boards to give out and monitor engineer license status. Why isn’t there one for software engineering? There needs to be, but it need not be a guild.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The States have their own engineering boards to give out and monitor engineer license status. Why isn’t there one for software engineering?

                There used to be one! It was discontinued (a) for lack of interest since no jobs or regulations require it, and (b) because being eligible to sit for the Professional Engineer (P.E.) exam requires having spent X years (X=4 or more, depending on circumstances) working under the supervision of a licensed P.E., and not many software engineers worked under licensed P.E.s.

                (I’m a software engineer with a civil EIT license and worked in the software industry under a civil P.E., so think I would’ve actually been one of the weirdos in a position to be licensed as a software P.E. Unfortunately, they did away with it before I got the chance.)

                • Hot SaucermanOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That last bit makes a lot of sense, actually, about not having enough licensed P.E. to work under for four years or more. That’s kind of a bummer, because the person I was responding to isn’t wrong, we’re handing the reigns of sysadmin duties to a lot of relatively under-trained folks.

                  However, on the flip side, the fact that we don’t have such a thing is part of what makes the internet so open. Literally anyone is allowed to make their own website.

              • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The States have their own engineering boards to give out and monitor engineer license status. Why isn’t there one for software engineering?

                Because unlike developers, engineers from poor countries can’t build stuff remotely.

                In case there’s requirement to hire only software engineers with licence then companies will just outsource as much as they can.

                • Hot SaucermanOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In case there’s requirement to hire only software engineers with licence then companies will just outsource as much as they can.

                  When did the people in the outsourcing countries suddenly get a state endorsed software engineering license? I would think the opposite would happen, it would restrict outsourcing until other countries had similar licenses for software engineers.

                  • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh you sound so naive my dude.

                    These corporations would just ‘buy’ products or services from third parties.

                    What is the US government going to do? Stop Bank of America from getting service from Infosys or some other vendor?