- YouTube
www.youtube.com
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
  • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    102·
    2 months ago

    I just want you to know how much I appreciate the fact that you typed out the list of repos mentioned in the video, since you know many people are not going to watch the video but still want the information.

    I mean this. Thank you. You are awesome and deserve cake.

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    862·
    2 months ago

    I don’t like statements like “paying for software is stupid”. Developers for Free software have this long standing issue that many people don’t want to pay them. Paying and using closed source proprietary software is stupid, especially if there is good free and open source libre alternatives.

    We need to figure out a monetization plan how to make people want to pay for free software. This will not only incentivize doing Free software, it also makes it possible for people making a living out of it. Everyone benefits from it!

  • Engywuck@lemm.ee
    813·
    2 months ago

    Paying for software is not inherently stupid. Bad and misleading title.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        14·
        2 months ago

        I support them adding ads and commercials into their products like pop ups and stuff or they can sell my information

    • Nonagon ∞ Orc@lemmy.world
      92·
      2 months ago

      It’s just clickbait, which is unavoidable on youtube if you want your video to be seen by more than 5 people. I don’t blame the creator for it tbh, especially because this title is not really misleading, just an opinion.

        • Stitch0815@feddit.orgDeutsch
          3·
          2 months ago

          An alternative video client. Mostly known for pulling add free youtube. But you can have several sources like patreon or nebula. The app is free and source available but they ask you to buy a license if you like it. It’s made/supportes by futo

          Edit: changed “open source” to “source available”

    • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
      1·
      2 months ago

      Not triggered by this emotional outrage bait

      it either costs your time or money or both. There is no situation where anything is free.

      I’m currently fixing, not mine, repos. I have the skill level to fix other coders design issues. One at a time.

      This is costing me time. Not just in doing the work, but all the time leading up to gaining the skillset to be at this level.

      Put a price tag on that. (i’m not boasting; actually having to do this grind)

  • xep@fedia.io
    768·
    2 months ago

    I think software developers deserve to be paid for their work. What an odd title.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      395·
      2 months ago

      Donate to FOSS developers if you find the software useful, but don’t give a cent to big tech companies.

      • pemptago@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        I had a similar change of heart years ago, watching a docu-series on PBS and realizing I wanted more of that content in the world. Even though you can stream PBS for about $5 a month, I canceled Netflix so I could pay PBS $20 a month to start making up for all the time my money was flowing in the wrong direction.

        We’re likely to get more of the things we invest in, and less of the things we don’t. That investment includes attention in ad-driven market, not only money.

        I know I’m not the first person on lemmy to have this realization, it’s one of the many reasons I like it here.

      • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
        11·
        2 months ago

        Depends. If the big tech company is actively supporting and developing Open Source and Free Software, then supporting by buying their stuff makes sense. I’m thinking of Valve/Steam, with their support and development in Proton, Linux Kernel, various other software, SteamOS and so on.

      • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
        1·
        2 months ago

        Currently trying to improve a popular Sphinx extension, sphobjinv. Can watch my daily pain here

        If anyone is so inclined, please throw some litecoin my way

        Li1S1eZzPHBGyc2Lfx93kCohM5qGYGo924

        The litecoin will go towards my daily milk tea habit. Elephants work for peanuts, i work for milk tea.

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
      31·
      2 months ago

      Software being free and devs getting paid are separate things. Software could be something that just costs money to make but free to use, like country infrastructure.

      If I made a script and you copied it, I didn’t lose anything, the GDP of the entire world just went up cause now you have my tool as well.

      I’m a dev btw

  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
    441·
    2 months ago

    It’s very misleading to say “paying for software is stupid” and not consider the total cost of ownership. TCO includes things like infrastructure and maintenance. As an exec, I am constantly faced with two choices: free software that might do what I want or paid software that sort of does what I want. At face value, you would immediately tell me to get the free stuff. That’s where you miss TCO.

    (Read the last paragraph if you think the business lens is bullshit)

    Every FOSS solution I run requires me to deploy and maintain it. I only have so many hours in the day so at some threshold I have to hire more and more people to deploy and maintain. Integrating? That’s on me too because I’m using free software so now I need a resource to glue things together. My “free” option actually costs a portion of my engineering resources. I’m also on the hook for failures. Running my own ERP? I need to have support staff on-call to handle outages.

    Every paid solution I run costs can require some of those things. Let’s ignore paid licenses and just focus on things I can completely outsource. This means I’m no longer on the hook for deployment and maintenance, so if I can show the cost of the paid software is less than my TCO, it’s a better deal. If I have a good relationship with the vendor, I might be able to delegate my integration needs to their product pipeline. I might be able to purchase a support contract that’s cheaper than running my own.

    At some point every company will outgrow certain software. It’s a constant reevaluation of the costs of paid vs TCO of free and when I need to spend resources making it do something it doesn’t. A managed telemetry stack like Sumo or New Relic allows me to scale quickly but cheaply until I have the revenue to build an in-house team to instrument fucking everything.

    The exact same logic applies to my time. I could run free everything. That comes with a higher TCO (usually). I say this as someone who has rebuilt dot files repos on the dot every three years and been running Linux since you could get it in a book at B Dalton at the indoor shopping mall so my tolerance for personal TCO is very high. However, I don’t change my own oil. It’s free! I could do it myself! I don’t want to. I buy certain things, like software, in my personal life because the TCO of FOSS is higher than I want to pay. I have outgrown Windows and Mac so I have some level required cost in Linux. I pay for some things like storage and routing solutions even though I could build and deploy and maintain all of that myself. Sometimes I just want my shit to work and not have to do it myself.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      8·
      2 months ago

      This is a great perspective to voice. Sometimes those of us who are staunch FOSS advocates can lose sight of the big picture. If one’s goal is to be, for example, an eCommerce software vendor, it probably doesn’t make sense to build and maintain your own DB stack or Internet infrastructure even though it is technically feasible. The money and resources needed to maintain that stuff will take away from the ability to improve and maintain the eConmerce application.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      2·
      2 months ago

      An important component of the cost to consider is how long we expect a company to support a piece of software, and how much it would cost to migrate everything when they drop support. FOSS wins in this regard, especially if you can get a support contact with the devs.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        3·
        2 months ago

        Neither wins here. I cannot tell you how many libraries I have had to replace because FOSS devs move on. It’s probably greater than the number of products I’ve had to abandon for lack of support but I’m not sure what that is at a percentage level. In the DevOps world everything burns constantly, paid and free.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          2·
          2 months ago

          It wins in the sense that you still have access to the software and code, and you have the option to either hire someone new to maintain it or switch to something else. Closed source proprietary software only leaves you with the latter choice.

  • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
    14·
    2 months ago

    I don’t mind paying for software and I regularly donate to open source projects. The problem is that most corporate software is closed and I don’t have the freedom to use it as I wish.

  • Joël de Bruijn@lemmy.ml
    12·
    2 months ago

    I prefer FOSS as much as possible and didn’t read all comments on YouTube but … desktop applications are not SAAS. eg LibreOffice and Adobe apps. But I guess it only requires a different title as the list itself is useful

    • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
      8·
      2 months ago

      These apps aren’t SaaS, but their alternatives are in at least some cases. LibreOffice competes with Microsoft Office, for example, and Microsoft wants people to pay a subscription for it, although I think you can still buy it outright. Pretty sure I’ve heard similar for Adobe products. Not super familiar with all the options, so can’t say if it’s true for all of them.

      • Joël de Bruijn@lemmy.ml
        1·
        2 months ago

        SAAS isn’t about subscription perse although they have them of course. Its about “not needing to take care of”. It’s software on “someone else’s computer” just as with public cloud. In a SAAS construct a provider does the hosting, computing, connection, install, configuration and maintenance. Absolving clients from that burden.

        Comparing proprietary desktop applications (even with a subscription) with FOSS alternatives is useful, it’s just not SAAS.

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          1·
          2 months ago

          So it seems like if you’re using Office on desktop, not SaaS, but they do offer it in a browser, so would that count? Technically, if it’s in JavaScript or something like that, computing is handled locally, but it still feels close enough to count.

          • Joël de Bruijn@lemmy.ml
            1·
            2 months ago

            My understanding is roughly, for example:

            • Microsoft Word desktop application: not SAAS.
            • Microsoft Word online: SAAS (just like any other service accessible by browser but not a “localhost”)
            • Onedrive: SAAS, storage with local explorer integration.
            • Exchange server on prem: not SAAS, increasingly diffucult to do.
            • Exchange server by MS: SAAS
            • Microsoft Outlook Classic for desktop: not SAAS.
            • Microsoft Teams for desktop: SAAS although local install but its just another frontend instead of browser.
            • Office365: SAAS but really a container for every tool in the MS online toolbox together.

            Some caveats: Word handles spellchecker in their cloud and clippy 2024 (Copilot) integration blurs the line.

  • llothar@lemmy.ml
    71·
    2 months ago

    Remember, for every paid SaaS, there is a free open-source self-hosted alternative

    CAD. Free solutions compared to commercial ones (SolidWorks, Inventor, Fusion360, Onshape) are like comparing Photoshop to an open source Paint clone.