This needs to be spread amongst the open source community. If we want features that don't align with corporate business needs then we are going to have to fund them ourselves. Whether that be financially, or through contributions like coding or testing. This video made me realize how few open source projects I have ever donated to. I donate to Wikipedia every year but have only ever given open source projects a handful of donations over the years (which is more than most I gather).
I paid for Ardour (open source DAW) to use .run execution (i have both Linux and Windows version) + i'm lazy to compile. I also had bug issue on the flatpak version (which is free to download)
On one hand I have nothing against paying but on the other ... i promised myself to not pay for half backed product that don't work. I have very low spec laptop and tried on it Ubuntu, Fedora and now Mint and I kid you not I've encountered more bugs, crashes and hard to solve issues for last 2-3 years of using them than on my Windows PCs that I'm using for like 15 years. And I don't even format Windows. I did it like 2 times due to CPU upgrade. Even today i tried to make simple update on Mint using GUI - 3 errors of failure including GRUB one but somehow it installed updates regardless?
Btw every time I install linux I get grub error and end up without GUI and have to manually fix it. On mint the app store have to cashe itself and it takes like 3-7 minutes?! Like how?! Not to mention that half of the stuff you download from it doesn't work. When I downloaded wine it did nothing? Used terminal - ok wine is installed. Did sudo apt get update ok still didn't work. Tries to remove it by terminal - wine doesn't exist despite the fact that when used terminal to check installed apps and folders it listed wine. I've spend 6h to find and learn command I've never saw or know despite beeing educated un OS administration. It was apt get upgrade btw. Like why? What does it do? Mint premium? Why didn't it do during install?
I'm sorry but it's not a service I'm comfortable to back my money with. Even those 5$ a year to feel good about it. At this state I simply prefere to pay for Windows and be done with it. I only use linux on thay laptop is because it's too weak for running Windows.
@@rotmistrzjanm8776 Mint is not commercial product. Instead it is derivative with from Ubuntu with limited resources so that doesn't matter. Ubuntu is known for poor QA, Mint hobbyist make derivative without resources and bring their own issues to it, and then you install instead of using preinstalled. Don't expect that work well. Oh, and don't mess with some "wine". That is another source of issues if you use something that is even less supported or less interest. When using Mint, you can be happy if all default applications work and rest can be used through browser. Mint isn't really system that people use in production environment for many reasons.
I think the Zorin OS guys are communicating the funding aspect very well with their one-time purchase "Pro" version (no subscription & mostly cosmetic stuff and prioritized support). Hope Linux Mint goes this direction
I don't donate to Wikipedia anymore until they stop the political influencing. It's not a neutral information platform (if there is such a thing at all), but they don't even try to. It's more like a regular newspaper, following mainstream ideology and government goals. It's always interesting to look into the editing history of an article about persons in politics e.g. (you can see the ministry of truth fighting hard there.. o). The fact that anybody can change and update articles on Wikipedia is also not very true. It's very likely your edits don't make it in, they will be overridden or your account will be banned. It's another "facebook", heavily moderated and under strong control of "agencies". You can find several "dark side" of Wikipedia documentations, examples and articles out there. Just in case you did not know about the situation, have a nice day! o)
Wikipedia is the WORST thing to donate to.. So hard to trust ANY of their pages truthfulness due to their Left wing political bias.. before I EVER donate to them again they need to become politically neutral and revert alot of the pages back to their original states before they started letting their bias take over.
@@oserodal2702 Libertarian slant? That's new to me, I would say it is a left wing / left ideologists platform. Not sure I understand what you mean with subtext and reading between the lines. If you can put it differently maybe? I'm not a native english speaker.. thank you! o)
@@oserodal2702 Yes, donate to some project which is working on decentralizing information, usefulness and knowledge exchange, not what Wikipedia does. Thank you! o)
In my understanding, idea of Stallman definition "free software" is that developer is paid for work. So the code can be GPL, but if someone need to make changes, that work can be invoiced. And what FSF did was that they make "free" replacements of many closed software so that companies can't sell the same crap forever. I've paid myself to Red Hat, but I've also used software without paying. I don't see any problem to pay, or use without paying. Bigger problem is users that don't respect software licences. Like not paying Windows licences.
If it were not for RedHat, SuSE, Canonical, Intel, AMD and on and on, Linux would not be where it is today with it's small 4% install base. It would still be in the Slackware stage of compiling everything. Would still be stuck in dependency hell like the old days, and trust me, people today have no idea what real dependency hell is today. Corporations are the life blood of large Foss projects. That said, the same applies to Microsoft, and to a degree MAC, without the corporate world they would not exist the way they are today. MS marketed to large corporations, because they knew what people used at work, they would likely want at home, and then when everyone at home used it, then the large companies would use what people were already familiar with.
It's simple, pay for what you want to see otherwise others will have no motivation to keep doing them, if you don't work for free, presume others are likeminded and just because some people develop and publish cool stuff as a hobby you should not expect them to further develop and maintain them as a hobby once the initial excitement wears off, also, i'd favor direct contributions to developers as much as possible over paying the foundations because the foundations often spend their money on conferences, offices, swag and basically everything OTHER than development. As always when given the option to contribute directly, say no to any and all middlemen
honestly, I have no issue with paid software. Case in point, I actually have traditionally bought Windows on all my machines.... Im jumping ship to Linux, NOT for the freebies, but to leave Recall in the dust. BUT if you make it paid, it has to compete with the free version. As a side not, I laughed at calling it a dong-dong... thank you for the (immature admittedly) grin
I wish I had the ability to contribute code, but I do what I can with my money. There's a lot of FOSS projects I really like and rely on, I want them to keep being improved and supported, I don't get how people who are even deeper into this stuff than me cannot understand that concept. If nobody gives money to these projects, updates can't come any faster than a glacial pace, if they come at all and the project doesn't just die because the one maintainer lost interest. I use Arch and KDE daily, GIMP, Krita, KeePassXC very often. The least I can do is pay them for all they've given me.
I think you didn't get that Valve's position right. Valve is putting effort on running Steam and Proton on Linux because Microsoft and Apple are closing their ecosystems. Decision on Steam on Linux likely happened on very same day when Gabe Newell heard Windows store and Microsoft plans on newer Windows runtime libraries. They need to make their service to work outside of Windows and Apple. So Linux gaming in fact matters for Valve more than Windows gaming because they can't control Windows. Also I don't think that Linux users just want everything free. If they pay their graphics card, it is reasonable to expect that company making graphic card chips make their chips work. That is AMD/Intel/nVidia responsibility. Games are even more obvious, if gamer buy game it is reasonable to expect that game is compiled to run on Steam runtime.
I run all my apps in VBox VMs. From LibreOffice I only use Calc to budget the next 6 months. Calc runs in my VM of Ubuntu 16.04 ESM. I could do exactly the same in MS-Office 2003 in the VM of my Windows XP :) So why should I as retiree pay for it? My contribution is, that I send bug reports on the errors I find and I'm prepared to try out different stuff to help finding the bug. Because I use many VMs, I could even tell in which distros & kernel releases the bug occurs.
And this is why I also don't mind things like snaps in Ubuntu or political agendas of project team members. If I get to use their stuff for free I can really only complain if they behave maliciously towards users.
True, but I would like to pay for someone to help me with troubleshooting and / or fixing the issues I come around to. I'm thinking of paying for RHEL when I finish building the house, altought 170€/year seems a little over the top for non-commercial use.
The team members usually pushing political agendas are often community managers or involved with public relations positions. Ground level code contributors could usually care less. I keep that in mind and generally consider that issue somewhat overblown.
I don't mind paying for FOSS at all, what i do mind and i said more than once is what does developer of software want me to pay for. First and foremost i won't pay ever for FOSS software that locks me out of usefull features, i won't pay for FOSS software that demands me to pay for COMMERCIAL licence to use it for my business. I also firmly beleive that unlike proprietary FOSS should never make difference between consumer and enterprise features. One of the biggest reasons why most avoid FOSS software is lack of official support so if FOSS devs want make money to maintain and support development then as source of income for enterprises who prefer to pay for support that's where focus should be on support so paid and free software should be identical in features. As i said i'd gladly pay for FOSS only if i pay for support and nothing else.
The average user fundamentally doesn't value any software financially. They only pay for what they are forced to. A few exceptions like games, people pay because they want to. Average person does not pay for microsoft products directly, it all comes preinstalled on their machines and then supplemented by their employer. All software is surviving on the backs of businesses needs even on windows/macos. The experience that is funded by the average person is nearly all entertainment. If you expand the idea of corporations funding Linux and OSS projects, then the next logical step is for small to medium size businesses doing the same. Maybe with a system where people can vote on features & bugfixes with money. A thirdparty will be needed to unlock the funds when the ticket has been adequately addressed.
People started paying for games when Steam made it cheap and more convenient to do so than the alternative, people default to convenience always, the issue with Linux is that it's easier to find the stuff without paying for it than it is to find the option to pay for it, so very few pay for it
17:15 disagree - they do that because it makes easier for linux users to buy their games AND it makes them more independent from Microsoft. I think that despite beeing slow the trajectory of Windows is clear at this point.
Why? if you want to make money with linux just help people configure their system or offer support solving issues. there are not many gud paid consumer support options. if you have anything more than a basic question good luck getting help from the community or accept having to study for hours
This needs to be spread amongst the open source community. If we want features that don't align with corporate business needs then we are going to have to fund them ourselves. Whether that be financially, or through contributions like coding or testing. This video made me realize how few open source projects I have ever donated to. I donate to Wikipedia every year but have only ever given open source projects a handful of donations over the years (which is more than most I gather).
There should ALWAYS BE A FREE VERSION OF LINUX.
However, to SUSTAIN LINUX, there should be a STABLE, SECURE version that is SUPPORTED by its AUDIENCE.
There's a reason why software that you pay for is typically the best you can get. Developers like to eat too.
Such as industry specific software like premiere, InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, da Vinci resolve, most DAWs, excel, is that how it goes?
Very good video btw. I am happy someone is speaking out on this
I you use some FOSS and you like it then you should donate.
Recall?
Do any open source system steal all your work?
I paid for Ardour (open source DAW) to use .run execution (i have both Linux and Windows version) + i'm lazy to compile. I also had bug issue on the flatpak version (which is free to download)
On one hand I have nothing against paying but on the other ... i promised myself to not pay for half backed product that don't work. I have very low spec laptop and tried on it Ubuntu, Fedora and now Mint and I kid you not I've encountered more bugs, crashes and hard to solve issues for last 2-3 years of using them than on my Windows PCs that I'm using for like 15 years. And I don't even format Windows. I did it like 2 times due to CPU upgrade. Even today i tried to make simple update on Mint using GUI - 3 errors of failure including GRUB one but somehow it installed updates regardless?
Btw every time I install linux I get grub error and end up without GUI and have to manually fix it. On mint the app store have to cashe itself and it takes like 3-7 minutes?! Like how?! Not to mention that half of the stuff you download from it doesn't work. When I downloaded wine it did nothing? Used terminal - ok wine is installed. Did sudo apt get update ok still didn't work. Tries to remove it by terminal - wine doesn't exist despite the fact that when used terminal to check installed apps and folders it listed wine. I've spend 6h to find and learn command I've never saw or know despite beeing educated un OS administration. It was apt get upgrade btw. Like why? What does it do? Mint premium? Why didn't it do during install?
I'm sorry but it's not a service I'm comfortable to back my money with. Even those 5$ a year to feel good about it. At this state I simply prefere to pay for Windows and be done with it. I only use linux on thay laptop is because it's too weak for running Windows.
How much you paid laptop with preinstalled Ubuntu? Those Dell XPS machines work ok with commercial Ubuntu LTS on normal developer/enterprise use.
@@rotmistrzjanm8776
Mint is not commercial product. Instead it is derivative with from Ubuntu with limited resources so that doesn't matter. Ubuntu is known for poor QA, Mint hobbyist make derivative without resources and bring their own issues to it, and then you install instead of using preinstalled. Don't expect that work well.
Oh, and don't mess with some "wine". That is another source of issues if you use something that is even less supported or less interest. When using Mint, you can be happy if all default applications work and rest can be used through browser. Mint isn't really system that people use in production environment for many reasons.
@@gruntaxeman3740 Well it's acctually one of the first lenovo Yoga I have bought from my sister. It has Skylake pentium in it.
This is your best work.
I think the Zorin OS guys are communicating the funding aspect very well with their one-time purchase "Pro" version (no subscription & mostly cosmetic stuff and prioritized support). Hope Linux Mint goes this direction
i always donate to wikipedia, but i dont think ive ever donated to linux. probably something for me to mull over
I don't donate to Wikipedia anymore until they stop the political influencing. It's not a neutral information platform (if there is such a thing at all), but they don't even try to. It's more like a regular newspaper, following mainstream ideology and government goals. It's always interesting to look into the editing history of an article about persons in politics e.g. (you can see the ministry of truth fighting hard there.. o).
The fact that anybody can change and update articles on Wikipedia is also not very true. It's very likely your edits don't make it in, they will be overridden or your account will be banned. It's another "facebook", heavily moderated and under strong control of "agencies". You can find several "dark side" of Wikipedia documentations, examples and articles out there.
Just in case you did not know about the situation, have a nice day! o)
Wikipedia is the WORST thing to donate to.. So hard to trust ANY of their pages truthfulness due to their Left wing political bias.. before I EVER donate to them again they need to become politically neutral and revert alot of the pages back to their original states before they started letting their bias take over.
Donate to the smaller OSS projects!
@@oserodal2702 Libertarian slant? That's new to me, I would say it is a left wing / left ideologists platform. Not sure I understand what you mean with subtext and reading between the lines. If you can put it differently maybe? I'm not a native english speaker.. thank you! o)
@@oserodal2702 Yes, donate to some project which is working on decentralizing information, usefulness and knowledge exchange, not what Wikipedia does. Thank you! o)
In my understanding, idea of Stallman definition "free software" is that developer is paid for work. So the code can be GPL, but if someone need to make changes, that work can be invoiced. And what FSF did was that they make "free" replacements of many closed software so that companies can't sell the same crap forever.
I've paid myself to Red Hat, but I've also used software without paying. I don't see any problem to pay, or use without paying.
Bigger problem is users that don't respect software licences. Like not paying Windows licences.
I donate at lesst 20 dollars to various projects each month
If it were not for RedHat, SuSE, Canonical, Intel, AMD and on and on, Linux would not be where it is today with it's small 4% install base. It would still be in the Slackware stage of compiling everything. Would still be stuck in dependency hell like the old days, and trust me, people today have no idea what real dependency hell is today. Corporations are the life blood of large Foss projects. That said, the same applies to Microsoft, and to a degree MAC, without the corporate world they would not exist the way they are today. MS marketed to large corporations, because they knew what people used at work, they would likely want at home, and then when everyone at home used it, then the large companies would use what people were already familiar with.
i will pay after i get the money for it. i don't enjoy starving. 😀
Paying for something one uses, only seems fair. That's all I am going to say.
I pay if I ask someone to do work for me.
But I don't pay if I do it myself. Sure I can contribute my work.
Well said man.
It's simple, pay for what you want to see otherwise others will have no motivation to keep doing them, if you don't work for free, presume others are likeminded and just because some people develop and publish cool stuff as a hobby you should not expect them to further develop and maintain them as a hobby once the initial excitement wears off, also, i'd favor direct contributions to developers as much as possible over paying the foundations because the foundations often spend their money on conferences, offices, swag and basically everything OTHER than development.
As always when given the option to contribute directly, say no to any and all middlemen
NO PAY!!! OMG what is this here? NOO! But Donate!
"we fight corporations!!11"
honestly, I have no issue with paid software. Case in point, I actually have traditionally bought Windows on all my machines.... Im jumping ship to Linux, NOT for the freebies, but to leave Recall in the dust.
BUT if you make it paid, it has to compete with the free version.
As a side not, I laughed at calling it a dong-dong... thank you for the (immature admittedly) grin
I wish I had the ability to contribute code, but I do what I can with my money. There's a lot of FOSS projects I really like and rely on, I want them to keep being improved and supported, I don't get how people who are even deeper into this stuff than me cannot understand that concept. If nobody gives money to these projects, updates can't come any faster than a glacial pace, if they come at all and the project doesn't just die because the one maintainer lost interest. I use Arch and KDE daily, GIMP, Krita, KeePassXC very often. The least I can do is pay them for all they've given me.
I think you didn't get that Valve's position right. Valve is putting effort on running Steam and Proton on Linux because Microsoft and Apple are closing their ecosystems. Decision on Steam on Linux likely happened on very same day when Gabe Newell heard Windows store and Microsoft plans on newer Windows runtime libraries. They need to make their service to work outside of Windows and Apple. So Linux gaming in fact matters for Valve more than Windows gaming because they can't control Windows.
Also I don't think that Linux users just want everything free. If they pay their graphics card, it is reasonable to expect that company making graphic card chips make their chips work. That is AMD/Intel/nVidia responsibility. Games are even more obvious, if gamer buy game it is reasonable to expect that game is compiled to run on Steam runtime.
That's why I donate.
I run all my apps in VBox VMs. From LibreOffice I only use Calc to budget the next 6 months. Calc runs in my VM of Ubuntu 16.04 ESM. I could do exactly the same in MS-Office 2003 in the VM of my Windows XP :) So why should I as retiree pay for it? My contribution is, that I send bug reports on the errors I find and I'm prepared to try out different stuff to help finding the bug. Because I use many VMs, I could even tell in which distros & kernel releases the bug occurs.
And this is why I also don't mind things like snaps in Ubuntu or political agendas of project team members. If I get to use their stuff for free I can really only complain if they behave maliciously towards users.
Snaps on Ubuntu have been great for me! But I don't use their containerized versions i get them from apt. :D
True, but I would like to pay for someone to help me with troubleshooting and / or fixing the issues I come around to. I'm thinking of paying for RHEL when I finish building the house, altought 170€/year seems a little over the top for non-commercial use.
The team members usually pushing political agendas are often community managers or involved with public relations positions. Ground level code contributors could usually care less. I keep that in mind and generally consider that issue somewhat overblown.
I don't mind paying for FOSS at all, what i do mind and i said more than once is what does developer of software want me to pay for. First and foremost i won't pay ever for FOSS software that locks me out of usefull features, i won't pay for FOSS software that demands me to pay for COMMERCIAL licence to use it for my business. I also firmly beleive that unlike proprietary FOSS should never make difference between consumer and enterprise features. One of the biggest reasons why most avoid FOSS software is lack of official support so if FOSS devs want make money to maintain and support development then as source of income for enterprises who prefer to pay for support that's where focus should be on support so paid and free software should be identical in features. As i said i'd gladly pay for FOSS only if i pay for support and nothing else.
The average user fundamentally doesn't value any software financially. They only pay for what they are forced to. A few exceptions like games, people pay because they want to. Average person does not pay for microsoft products directly, it all comes preinstalled on their machines and then supplemented by their employer. All software is surviving on the backs of businesses needs even on windows/macos. The experience that is funded by the average person is nearly all entertainment.
If you expand the idea of corporations funding Linux and OSS projects, then the next logical step is for small to medium size businesses doing the same. Maybe with a system where people can vote on features & bugfixes with money. A thirdparty will be needed to unlock the funds when the ticket has been adequately addressed.
People started paying for games when Steam made it cheap and more convenient to do so than the alternative, people default to convenience always, the issue with Linux is that it's easier to find the stuff without paying for it than it is to find the option to pay for it, so very few pay for it
truth
17:15 disagree - they do that because it makes easier for linux users to buy their games AND it makes them more independent from Microsoft. I think that despite beeing slow the trajectory of Windows is clear at this point.
Nevermind, you said that later 😅
Why? if you want to make money with linux just help people configure their system or offer support solving issues. there are not many gud paid consumer support options. if you have anything more than a basic question good luck getting help from the community or accept having to study for hours
Hi can you delete this video? You have a coeherent point and might actually help Linux development in the long run, please dont' do that. 😂
joke*
open source = legal piracy
Did you hear about new distro, piratebay OS ?
I don't pay for anything.
What we already have works, those that can be bothered for whatever reason do.
Everyone are running their desktop software on top of the server software that in it's turn run on the Linux kernel...
IT IS THE SAME SOFTWARE!
/ROFL