Does anyone know if there's conversations ongoing in the free software community around *why* software isn't free?
Like stallman is all "closed source is bad ethics m'kay", but makes it seem like a choice which is where a lot of people seem to be. Ignoring how market competition makes closed source not only appealing, but an actual advantage to competition.
Like yeah you can make your shit open source and it's still possible to make a profit. But you can make way more if you monopolize platforms/code.
@nergalur I don't think most people in the free software community are interested in making the maximum amount of money. If they were, they'd probably have chosen other jobs.
If I were to guess why some proprietary programs are better than their free counterparts, I'd say that's probably down to FOSS not really being a thing amongst designers and UX/UI creators. Wherever there is only a marginal user interface, FOSS is usually dominant.
@ctrlaltchaos @nergalur Lacking in UX/UI folks is a part of it, but only a small part, I think. Bigger reasons why proprietary software can often be more usable, more reliable, etc: Money. I truly believe that paying people lots of money to complete certain tasks ends up producing good results. Also project management. This is often overlooked or even looked down on in FLOSS, but having _good_ project managers make executive decisions about a project can save time, and increase quality.
Def did not want to imply open source work is paid, just trying to say it's really only for certain stuff (usually infrastructure related from what I can tell). The full thread goes more into detail
It is true though that not every project needs to be that big which is part of the reason FOSS exists at all.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!