Comment by ealloc
8 years ago
I use a huge amount of open-source software which I do not believe is subsidized.
Some is, eg some linux/gnome devs are paid to contribute. But many smaller projects/components are volunteer-only.
8 years ago
I use a huge amount of open-source software which I do not believe is subsidized.
Some is, eg some linux/gnome devs are paid to contribute. But many smaller projects/components are volunteer-only.
> But many smaller projects/components are volunteer-only.
Someone is paying for it with their spare time. Spare time doesn't last forever.
If you're not paying for something, you should see it either as a temporary shortcut that eventually needs a more sustainable fix, or something you don't care about if it disappears.
While I understand, and kinda agree, the idea that Volunteer only projects are not susceptible longer term and your implication that commercial products are more sustainable over a long term is provably false
Many many many many many commercial software projects, that people paid money for, are killed every single year.. Many other volunteer only projects last for decades, some of which have been critical to the very foundation of the web.
So no "if you are not paying for you should see it as a temporary shortcut" is a completely false statement
It's subsidized by those volunteers' time. Time that could otherwise be spent on other things.
Granted, there's nothing nefarious about this, but there isn't anything necessarily nefarious about the fact that anything you get for free is being paid for somewhere else. Just potentially nefarious, if you don't know what's paying for it.