As foolish as it is to think that bad people would create good laws, or that good laws don’t get used towards bad ends, it’s even more foolish to think that laws could ever be a replacement for good people. If everyone was good to each other, we wouldn’t need laws. If everyone was bad to each other, we’d probably be better off without them.
Is there a guide somewhere about how someone’s supposed to create open source software without monetizing it? Or is it just the VC money that makes it not real open source?
I’ve seen this sentiment a lot, especially from OSS veterans like rich harris (who ironically now gets his paycheck from VC money). On one hand I want to complain about it too and say that people should only build open software for the love of building and sharing, but on the other hand it costs a lot of money to exist in meat space and it seems counterproductive and unfair to expect people to build software I find useful (and most likely even profit off of myself) on nights and weekends and get paid in GitHub stars.
While there's lots of different models of open source, what I've seen most often is people setting it up first then selling themselves as gurus and support for major users with money. Often they live low overhead lives - not competitive with SF salaries or startup world. VC money doesn't generally fit this model. While I'm sure there's some, the vast majority of open-source software relied on to run most of the modern world is not VC funded.
(Lago co-founder here)
We shared a few thoughts about « why oss does not win by being cheaper », we are trying o find the balance between oss, quality, sustainability, indeed.
It stayed at #1 for most of the day. Naively, I quit my job to work on it full time. Pretty sure it’s also what got me a YC & Sequoia interview. Alas, making something HN viewers find cool != PMF… at least not yet.
> Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development.
Absolutely. It’s a fool’s errand to try to develop the men without prioritizing the development of women (ie mothers of men). I’d even go as far as to say the underdevelopment of women directly results in the corruption of whole society; how many vandals, militants, and generally corrupt men are the result of absent or uneducated mothers?
This article would have convinced me a few years ago, but I’ve tried choosing the “right” technologies and tools unsuccessfully for too long to fall for it now. You can be idealistic or you can be successful, but it’s very difficult to be both. I know I’ve lost a lot of community building potential trying to get people to come over to the correct, open-source, democratized technology, instead of the proprietary tool/platform they’re used to. But at the end of the day, an active discord server is a lot better than a dead forum.
What are those ideals and how are they relevant to your project? What do you expect out of participants of a project other than a willingness to collaborate and work on that project?
Why would you (or anyone) be working on a project that is not highly relevant to your ideals? That seems like it would be a huge waste of a very short window of opportunity.
You didn't answer my question. Therefore it's still unclear to me what ideals you are talking about.
My ideals, as far as I think they concern a project I work on, is that I want to work on the project. The use of non-free software doesn't preclude those ideals.
When I was at a firm, my clients included a number of restaurants ranging from the high-end to the decidedly low-end (i.e., fast food), including a number of major restaurant chains HQ'd in the SoCal area. I can guarantee that I know more about restaurant finances than anyone on this thread other than an actual restaurant owner, because for years it was my job to know this stuff.
But anyways: the number one operational cost that kills restaurants is leasing costs, not supplies or employee wages, because those latter costs can be managed based on the amount of business, time of year, etc.
And the truth about "high quality" versus "low quality" ingredients is that at the restaurant scale, the price difference isn't that large; excepting meat, it can be as low as 10% (and in some cases, at least in SoCal it can be cheaper to buy organic produce than nonorganic). I' still close friends with a number of food purchasers and suppliers in the SoCal area, and you would be absolutely shocked at how little restaurants have to pay for their produce and fish. Consequently, their isn't much of an incentive for a restaurant to use the lowest-quality ingredients because their isn't a significant cost savings but there is a huge risk associated with using lower-quality ingredients. (However, the calculus is different for food manufacturers, who sell their products at wholesale prices and so have significantly smaller potential margins.)
So your experience is limited to SoCal at best. In my experience restaurants will unfortunately cut corners and deliver garbage because it is cheaper or easier.
Agree, gamblor clearly has only eaten at restaurants, not worked at them. Restaurants definitely love using cheap nonstick pans and other plasticware for general convenience. I've heard of chef's tricks involving plastic wrap that make me cringe.
"Restaurants" is a broad church, and has venues on both ends of the spectrum - sourcing either best possible quality or lowest possible price depending what you're buying.
As an idle heuristic, i'd tend towards French Fries in restaurants being made cheaply though.
Apple has an incentive to discourage web use to keep people in their app ecosystem, so it’s not inconceivable that small frustrations like that are just one of the ways they do it.
