* Psionic K <[email protected]> [2025-08-05 08:50]: > I'm sure you all have worked very hard. However, you have not made a > coherent body of reasoning. It is a circular body of reasoning. Its > complexity is a trap. If one should attempt to find the framing, they > will find that it has deconstructed and dismissed any disbelief in > advance. It is not axiomatic. It is grounded in itself.
Ah yes, the classic “your logic is too circular because it doesn't agree with mine” argument. Very postmodern. Did you major in *Vibes*? > Reality doesn't care. And that is why we can see the outcomes not > fitting the model. The honest scientist throws away the model and > starts over. Reality doesn’t care? Funny — reality runs on free software: 1. The Internet? Mostly powered by Linux, Apache, NGINX — all free software. Reality seems pretty online these days. 2. Android? Billions of phones based on the Linux kernel. Free software in your pocket, calling your mom, stalking your ex. 3. Supercomputers? 100% of the world’s top 500 run Linux. Even reality’s cheat codes use free software. So if the model doesn’t fit your outcome, maybe it’s your outcome that needs debugging. > I believe users should be free to experience the Year of the Linux > Desktop. Hundreds of millions of users. I believe that if I use > "free" tools, they should not be low quality, poorly adopted, > abandoned and ignored. There is no good on earth besides software > which delivers value at scale with such a low marginal cost. There is > no excuse for free software to abandon hundreds of millions of people. Here is the thing: free software hasn’t abandoned anyone. It’s just that: - You expected polish with no budget. - You mistook volunteer-driven for vendor-driven. - And you assumed “free as in freedom” means “free as in concierge service.” Hundreds of millions are using free software every day — they just don’t call it that. They call it Android, Firefox, Ubuntu, VLC, Blender, and “that Linux thing my cousin installed.” So no, free software didn’t abandon users. It just didn’t come with a marketing department or a TikTok campaign. > The way is to embrace specialization, embrace paid development, and > figure out the sales and finance of the production of the good. That > way, like every other good that requires specialized skills to > produce, those who have the capability to produce it can translate the > demand of those who want it into the existence of it. Absolutely — and ironically, free software already does exactly that. Here are three points proving it: 1. Paid development is already core to free software. - Red Hat, Canonical, SUSE, Collabora, Igalia, Purism, and others pay full-time developers to maintain and improve free software. - The Linux kernel? Over 85% of contributions come from paid professionals — not hobbyists. - LibreOffice, GStreamer, GNOME, and KDE all have companies and organizations funding core contributors. 2. Specialized services and support are the business model. - Free software companies thrive by selling support, integration, customization, and hosting. - Example: Red Hat was acquired by IBM for $34 billion — all built on free software. - GitLab, Nextcloud, and Elastic (at least originally) built scalable, profitable businesses around FOSS. 3. Sales and finance mechanisms already exist and succeed. - Platforms like OpenCollective, GitHub Sponsors, NLnet, and Sovereign Tech Fund provide funding channels for free software. - Government procurement (EU, US, Brazil) now includes mandates or incentives for FOSS — converting public need into sustained funding. So yes — we already embraced paid dev, specialization, and finance. That is the way. Welcome aboard. -- Jean Louis --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
