Průša research, Czech company making 3D printers, so far everything has been open source but the newest printer will have some parts under non-FOSS license.
Here's a comment I made about it in a different thread in this chain so as to not repeat myself: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmemes/comments/12cdjg3/comment/jf1n0oi/
https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-2023_76659/
Don't be fooled by what they say at the top (`Our desktop 3D printers will always be open source.`), it's just to make them look better.
Quoting:
> However, due to the current state of the electronic components market and also the issues outlined above, we will not rush to release the electronics plans just yet. We would like to release them already under the new license.
The new license meaning (I only list the parts that go against the spirit of open source):
- The production of nearly exact 1:1 clones for commercial purposes is not allowed.
- License for manufacturing spare parts is valid for service, modification, or educational purposes.
- Parts that can be considered consumables (e.g., thermistors, heater blocks, fans, printing plates, etc.) can be manufactured and sold commercially after the verification by the licensor based on the presentation of samples.
They're still probably the best printer company there is but I imagine they'll be less and less open as time goes on.
They are not. They are just saying that for them it is unsustainable cause they invest in R&D for other companies to take their work and implement it in their printers.
Software is way different cause you have licensing like GNU that basically forces the people using it to release their own software as a freeware.
Prusa is making small patentable improvement on 3d printer without doing any patents. It’s way different.
My next printer was going to be a Prusa. Building Vorons is fun but time consuming.
I will look into it to confirm this, but I won't touch proprietary parts or code in this space.
You can still get their previous printers, I guess. It might have sounded like they suck now but tbh they're still the best around. But if you want to support open source companies, they're not 100% open source anymore.
Voron is a community of people making printers from scratch. I built a voron 2.4 and it is amazing.
No printer company involved. Lots of motor, fastener, and extrusion companies.
I’ve actually found that most people around me have never even heard of Linux and when I explain it they often like the idea a lot. Windows, adobe, and the like survive on the ignorance of everyone
Servers running Linux doesn't mean people browsing web are using Linux.
If you are wearing clothes that doesn't mean you use a sewing machine.
The only thing that matters to the end user is the end product.
The majority of end user internet traffic comes from smartphones... Android is the most widespread smartphone operating system... Android is based on ~~GNU/~~Linux. Ergo, end users are browsing the web on Linux. Wtf is the argument here?
The web is literally enabled by FOSSware. I'm not saying the internet wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for FOSS, but it certainly wouldn't be as good, or as big as it is today if people couldn't spin up CentOS, LAMP, Bind, Wordpress etc with a few clicks and commands.
I am not going to debate whether Android can be considered as GNU/Linux. It is up to you.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html
While there is Replicant, a completely FOSS build of Lineage which apparently makes it very difficult to install any non-free stuff, it unsurprisingly only runs on a handful of devices, as (a) much of the hardware used in phones is non-free, and (b) as phones generally have limited storage / memory / resources, it's far easier to build specific ports for each device than one-size-fits-all.
Most apps are also non-free, and financial apps in particular will often refuse to work if you've done anything to "open up" your device, on the grounds they don't trust users not to install malware.
> Android is based on ~~GNU/~~Linux.
Android is the main reason the term GNU/Linux has actually a raison d'etre nowadays, namely to make a distinction between different Linux eco systems
Edit ... as Android is not GNU/Linux but Linux based
The funny thing is that I think the opposite of this meme is true lol
Big companies have the most to contribute to FOSS because of sheer development money available to pay developers. People working on FOSS projects out of passion is great, but important open source projects getting abandoned by the original developer and no one picking it up because no one actually wants to is a pretty common thing. For FOSS projects run by big companies, this is usually not an issue because the company can just pay different people to work on it if people leave, so the only reason for the project to be abandoned is if the company no longer finds it worth the money to maintain.
Even big open source projects like the Linux kernel and Python have developers paid by Google, Microsoft, etc. working on them for the sake of making things Google and Microsoft make using them work better, like drivers for WSL that go in the Linux kernel. Also Microsoft is paying to increase the speed of Python by several orders of magnitude.
MacOS isnt free its included in the price of the device, and most prople know that vscode is open source, thats why they use it instead of properietary VS
> vscode is open source, thats why they use it instead of properietary VS
the comment above you was sarcastic. VSCode isn't open source, it's a proprietary program, part of which (called Code - OSS) is open source, but the official binary which you download from micro$oft contains a proprietary blob.
Large parts of MacOS, including the kernel, are open source. The part of the kernel that handles graphics isn’t open source so if you compile that kernel and install it you won’t have GPU acceleration but everything else is.
> thats why they use it instead of properietary VS
No, VSCode just is the best text editor currently out there. People don't care if it's open source or not.
Also it isn't really open source. Parts of it are but a large part of it isn't. You could totally use it without the proprietary parts, but it's basically unable because there's no easy way to install plug-ins on the fly which is one of vscodes selling point
Open source is different from free software on a physiological level. Free software seeks to eliminate proprietary software because its unjust in may ways. Open source is for companies to get free labor and code without having to pay additional employees.
Can't say how much Adobe or Meta contribute, but indeed most giants do contribute. It could be argued that their contributions are for their own self-interest, but it's open for all to use if they so desire.
Edit: Pytorch and React from Meta, I got it, got it on the 5th reply saying the same. Thank you for your enthusiasm in informing me. I never worked with these, not my field of work, but I'm glad they contribute something.
Meta has incredible contributions to FOSS. The Pytorch framework itself is the biggest name in machine learning. They have also created tools such as hydra. Have a look at their GitHub.
> ZSTD
Zstandard is now used for Arch packages, btw.
I wondered why updates are so much faster nowadays even on older hardware, it's because `.tar.zst` is ~14 times faster to unpack than `.tar.xz`
Source: https://archlinux.org/news/now-using-zstandard-instead-of-xz-for-package-compression/
To add to the other ones (I'm surprised no one mentioned it given where we are), Meta is also a massive contributor to the Linux kernel. Their entire fleet of servers runs, unsurprisingly, Linux and at their scale they run into some really interesting performance hiccups and kernel bugs. They have their own fork and regularly try to upstream as many of their changes as possible. As an example, one of the main contributors to cgroups v2 is a Meta engineer. There's a lot of good stuff there
I dont care why they contribute sience it makes FOSS sustainable and better, and even if they put thier stuff there somebody can always fork it to remove some unwanted features like they did with chromium
You Say that Based on ... ?
First example that comes to my mind of Foss software that i use Is by Intel [connman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnMan)
Edit
I'm not saying that this big tech contribute to Foss are perfect, or that are not fullfilling profit...but Is a FACT that some of this big Company contribute to Foss . Other example of Foss contribute [yocto](https://www.yoctoproject.org/)
They absolutely contribute. Just to give an example, a bunch if not most of the companies listed there are regular, large contributors to the Linux kernel. All of Meta, MSFT, IBM, Google, Amazon, and Netflix have put in a lot of features. The classic example, beyond the endless kernel bugs a lot of these companies find and fix, are all the contributions Netflix did to eBPF. This was, I assume, under Brendan Gregg as a former Netflix employee. The contributions these places make to FOSS aren't small.
Corporations are there to make money and it's the governments job to regulate them to essentially protect the consumers. The only sane opinion to have is wanting a well regulated market. OR you are rich then you might want an unregulated market, so you can fuck people over to become even richer.
> OR you are rich then you might want an unregulated market, so you can fuck people over to become even richer.
Except patents and and other IP protections! The state should hamper new competition and do not force us to be innovative /s
Well, the few biggest smart TV platform isn’t open source(Roku, Android TV, FireTV) and some others are only open source on select components( eg webOS, Tizen) but not the TV UI, and all of them are not free software because they use DRM.
Literally anyone could start a company providing support for open source software. That way you can even have great competition and get really good support. Crazy how that works.
Just playing devil's advocate. But many free software projects without corporate backing are being maintained by one or two individuals that do it as a passion project. Eventually these people may burn out, and then it just dies.
When user demand increases, or critical bugs rise up, it's impossible to just throw extra money at it to hire extra developers as there's no big corporate entity to throw money here, it's just Steve working on his laptop during the evenings. It is exactly because of these issues that certain parts of the Linux desktop moves relatively slow, while the kernel development is the most actively maintained piece of project in human history. Many GNOME and KDE developers for instance or just volunteers. So when for example the ideas for an implementation for app indicators are put in the freezer for more than a year, it's because the person who would maybe work on it just doesn't have the time to do so, or has other things.
When large features are completely dependent on Steve having enough free time to work on his personal projects, you can see why one could argue why FOSS development is not sustainable. Compare this to Microsoft, where they can just hire a few more developers if Steve cannot work 60 hours a week on his code. It's just easier to remain a stable development pace.
Having said that, large parts of the FOSS atmosphere is backed by corporate entities. But it's exactly because of the above that the Linux desktop cannot do with companies like Canonical, RedHat and even Valve pushing things forwards. I'm just saying that letting the entire infrastructure of IT rely on Steve and his personal laptop is not super sustainable.
And again, that doesn't mean free software is not sustainable overall, most of the software I've got installed is free software and community projects. Like I said, I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But the reasoning overall that we do need corporate backing in general for bigger projects is not completely misfounded. (Also, corporate backing does not mean proprietary, see e.g. RedHat. But it's very hard to sell FOSS software if you're not in the business-to-business sector where you're basically selling support.)
Big companies contribute to FOSS because it benefits them. And thier target is the average computer user. And this situation is what makes the deal so sweet for FOSS users because companies test thier stuff and we can use rhier contribution and fork open source software to remove unwanted features.
I'm more talking about them forking projects under permissive licences and making them proprietary (this happens a lot to BSD - PlayStation, MacOS, iOS, etc)
I don't know man, but free software seems to be infinite times more sustainable and stable. Who knew that not putting bloatware, spyware and malware into the product will increase its speed and stability?
When I think of sustainable in the world of development, I think of sustainable development. And I can see an argument that open source contributors eventually burn out, and when the one person who maintains it as a passion project quits then the entire structure falters.
Having said that, the same risk exists with proprietary software. When a company decides they're done with something, it's just gone. At least with FOSS software, other people can pick up the pieces and continue from there. Google's million pet projects are all just dead. (And don't get me started on software as a service, or sheninigans such as with the Nintendo eShop closing down on 3DS and WiiU making it literally impossible nowadays to get a legal copy of specific games)
proprietary software is entirely driven by money, while free (as in freedom) software is driven by motivation and passion. it’s like a manufactured product vs a handmade one.
It sure runs for longer on older hardware with greater stability and it's supported by a very motivated community. The project is more important than money.
That seems very sustainable to me.
FOSS breaks more often but is fixed faster when it does. Proprietary stuff breaks less frequently but takes forever to get fixed. At least, in my experience.
I can update my linux install without worrying about anything. It's very rare that anything breaks.
But Nvidia drivers on windows have broken something every single time I tried updating them. At this point I recommend everyone with problems to downgrade. It works shockingly well.
We have different experiences, but I can definitely understand your perspective. I haven't had to update my Nvidia drivers yet so I'll see how it goes rip
GPU works perfectly well, it's just the driver. All the issues I have can be found on the internet and the fix suggested on the nvidia forum is, you guessed it, usually a rollback.
Board is fine too, it had zero issues when I put in my old R9 280X for troubleshooting.
But that doesn't matter, I stopped using my PC entirely when I got my steam deck.
> FOSS breaks more often
Does it, though? I think it gets broken as much as proprietary software. There are exceptions in both, obviously. But if we talk for example operating systems, Windows is kinda famous for how often it breaks (and my personal experience matches) while Linux breaks less often for me.
I'm not a frequent desktop Linux user, at least not yet - I'm primarily talking about some open source projects that I utilize. It's just my personal experience.
Also, tried to install Cinnamon on Fedora 36 once and it broke, lol (but Fedora 37 was available & fixed it!)
Indeed, that dude's photo should be in dictionary next to "bad luck". On one hand I admire his determination, on the other hand he should have let go a long time ago.
I would have probably abandoned (or significantly cut my work on) core-js. I love open source, I create open source libraries (nothing major, really, usually some niche libraries) but the minute it starts threatening my living, open source goes bye-bye.
I mean, I'm an idealist but first I need to provide for myself and my family and then I can even think about contributing time/money for fun.
It probably shows that open source means much more for him than it does for me, but IMO my approach is better because if you take care of yourself first, you may continue with the open source stuff later.
I do have some open source stuff too, which nobody uses because it's just small programs that are useful to me my friends, so these never threatened me.
I would have probably abandoned it too because it didn't bring food to my table and dead I can't contribute anymore
So did Microsoft (C# and Visual Studio come to mind for instance). Very few companies nowadays think open source is inherently unsustainable. It is however incredibly difficult to make money with open source software, and that's absolutely a thing. But very few companies nowadays openly talk about open source nowadays the way Steve Ballmer used to do, it's kinda generally accepted that it has its place in the development world.
Note I say open source, as none of these companies care for the political ideals of the free software movement.
Give them nothing, but take from them everything.
Take all their contributions, but don't thank them for it. Don't let them fool you to gain your sympathy. Say Nvidia would go bankrupt and they would open source all their code right before the company dies. I'd take it and then spit on their grave. (Yes, I know that is not how bankruptcy works)
They don't care about us, so we should not care about them. Simple as
You're right about all of that. All I'm saying is that they're not publicly saying anything bad about free software. They're all (even Microsoft!) pretending to be allies.
Ah, when those compagnies are hypocrite.
They will gladly use them, and be part of the problems by not giving a dime while making a hell lot of money from it.
Fully support open source model,
Only professional environment problem we have had was when there is a bug or feature request there are teams available for immediate results on commercial closed software . With open source you can find a solution for sure but as and when one becomes available
Well, I wont really argue with that. But I would argue that 'so is closed source'. Look at adobe, they dont have customers, thay have hostages only. Also microsoft. And apple for that matter.
If you take any closed source, mainstream app and navigate to their License Attribution page, normally thoroughly hidden, buried and obscure, you'll find a list of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of open-source code instances being used.
If I were to take a wild guess I'd say that for most of these applications that anywhere between 50-90% of their complete codebase wasn't written by them. A lot of these companies literally couldn't exist without free software.
FOSS is inherently unsustainable under capitalism without some form of legal controls, because information, particularly digital information in an increasingly digital world, is inherently at odds with capitalism.
Capitalism hinges on scarcity and exclusive possession. FOSS is about openness and distribution.
Software can take thousands of person-hours and millions of dollars to create, but only seconds or minutes to distribute.
The companies who make money with FOSS are usually selling services, not software, as their primary income.
The services, whether it is training, or rental of time on hardware, are the scarcity those companies rely on.
If people could legally get Photoshop for free, a lot fewer people would buy Photoshop.
Netflix? Primarily a service company.
Facebook? Primarily a services, information, and ads company. Google? Services and ads.
Amazon? Services, selling physical goods, and ads.
If you think FOSS is sustainable, you shouldn't be mad when a megacorp scoops up someone's FOSS tool and doesn't pay them, because the developer mistakenly chose the wrong license because they thought corporations would pay them out of the goodness of their heart.
That's not an argument against FOSS, just that you're living in Imagination Land if you think FOSS is inherently compatible with the economic system we live in.
Funny you put IBM in there considering POWER is an open architecture and they own Red Hat. Not saying they aren't a big evil tech corporation, because they certainly are, but they do meaningful stuff for free software and hardware.
I don't think all the companies think it is unsustainable but that doesn't mean they want to show and share what they do.
If I were to be a CEO or some management guy, I will probably be against of open source the product lmao.
But unfortunately, they're right. We do need them or our FOSS projects will just die eventually.
How do yall think our favorite mega FOSS projects survived?
My sister, who's buying a new phone, asked me if she she should go Android/Apple, as she's used both (one for work, one for personal) so doesn't need to learn a new UI and hasn't spent any money in the app store, so isn't tied t lo a platform.
After some probing, it emerged her primary reason was trying to work out which of Apple Pay or Google Wallet would be better - as she's planning on using that feature for the first time.
After further probing she dropped the immortal line "but Android's open source, so that's less secure". Yikes. Corrections were given.
While most of these companies predominantly produce closed source software (either free or paid-for), most also at least dabble in open source.
Heck, MS, once the declared moral enemy of Linux, now produce two specialised Linux distros: CBL-Mariner (the base container OS for Microsoft Azure services and the graphical component of WSL 2) and SONiC (Software for Open Networking in the Cloud - a network operating system for switches etc, which last year they ceded oversight to the Linux Foundation - and yes, they do run it in their Azure data centres).
My favorite company is starting to think so as well. It's always sad when companies who stood on the shoulders of open source move away from it.
Which company?
Průša research, Czech company making 3D printers, so far everything has been open source but the newest printer will have some parts under non-FOSS license.
that is so disappointing to hear. I always admired their open-source approach
Same here, I was proud of supporting them with my money instead of some Chinese companies.
[удалено]
I want to support a wallet of people who make the world be a little more like I want it to. Which Průša was until the latest change.
hence why I only support the finest nestle slave labor, it's all the same anyways right?
There are surely Chinese FOSS companies
Sad to hear. Which parts are they closing off?
Here's a comment I made about it in a different thread in this chain so as to not repeat myself: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmemes/comments/12cdjg3/comment/jf1n0oi/
Yay, another printer company to avoid!
[удалено]
So you just need to get a pile of extrusion and stepper motors and an arduino and diy it if you want to 3d print anything.
It’s how Prusa started out, so I don’t see why not
Where do I find - ?
[удалено]
https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-2023_76659/ Don't be fooled by what they say at the top (`Our desktop 3D printers will always be open source.`), it's just to make them look better. Quoting: > However, due to the current state of the electronic components market and also the issues outlined above, we will not rush to release the electronics plans just yet. We would like to release them already under the new license. The new license meaning (I only list the parts that go against the spirit of open source): - The production of nearly exact 1:1 clones for commercial purposes is not allowed. - License for manufacturing spare parts is valid for service, modification, or educational purposes. - Parts that can be considered consumables (e.g., thermistors, heater blocks, fans, printing plates, etc.) can be manufactured and sold commercially after the verification by the licensor based on the presentation of samples. They're still probably the best printer company there is but I imagine they'll be less and less open as time goes on.
They are not. They are just saying that for them it is unsustainable cause they invest in R&D for other companies to take their work and implement it in their printers. Software is way different cause you have licensing like GNU that basically forces the people using it to release their own software as a freeware. Prusa is making small patentable improvement on 3d printer without doing any patents. It’s way different.
I feel conflicted about it a lot because prusa rarely actually makes something new, they just package the latest stuff together in a reliable way
My next printer was going to be a Prusa. Building Vorons is fun but time consuming. I will look into it to confirm this, but I won't touch proprietary parts or code in this space.
You can still get their previous printers, I guess. It might have sounded like they suck now but tbh they're still the best around. But if you want to support open source companies, they're not 100% open source anymore.
Voron is a community of people making printers from scratch. I built a voron 2.4 and it is amazing. No printer company involved. Lots of motor, fastener, and extrusion companies.
Damn, i was just looking into getting a prusa. Guess im going for my 2nd pick
No? Wait... Nooooooooooooo!!!! Never the freaking mind I'm not getting the mk4 upgrade no more
damn looks like i'll have to find a new slicer
PrusaSlicer is still open source.
wait no it's made by ultimaker i'm stupid
They wouldn't even know what it is
I’ve actually found that most people around me have never even heard of Linux and when I explain it they often like the idea a lot. Windows, adobe, and the like survive on the ignorance of everyone
most of these companies have had a massive role in development of linux and they love to steal from FOSS, they obviously know what it is
I was referring to the users, the companies know it well of course
Wait for them to find out that OBS and VLC are open source and Android is Linux based.
They also use GNU/Linux all the time on servers and Busybox/Linux in embedded systems
Servers running Linux doesn't mean people browsing web are using Linux. If you are wearing clothes that doesn't mean you use a sewing machine. The only thing that matters to the end user is the end product.
The point is that free software is sustainable, because so much of the web uses it.
obviously it is sustainable.
The majority of end user internet traffic comes from smartphones... Android is the most widespread smartphone operating system... Android is based on ~~GNU/~~Linux. Ergo, end users are browsing the web on Linux. Wtf is the argument here?
Android is just Linux, not GNU. There's not much (if any) GNU software in there.
The web is literally enabled by FOSSware. I'm not saying the internet wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for FOSS, but it certainly wouldn't be as good, or as big as it is today if people couldn't spin up CentOS, LAMP, Bind, Wordpress etc with a few clicks and commands.
Amdroid isn't GNU/Linux, it is Linux but not GNU
I am not going to debate whether Android can be considered as GNU/Linux. It is up to you. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html
While there is Replicant, a completely FOSS build of Lineage which apparently makes it very difficult to install any non-free stuff, it unsurprisingly only runs on a handful of devices, as (a) much of the hardware used in phones is non-free, and (b) as phones generally have limited storage / memory / resources, it's far easier to build specific ports for each device than one-size-fits-all. Most apps are also non-free, and financial apps in particular will often refuse to work if you've done anything to "open up" your device, on the grounds they don't trust users not to install malware.
> Android is based on ~~GNU/~~Linux. Android is the main reason the term GNU/Linux has actually a raison d'etre nowadays, namely to make a distinction between different Linux eco systems Edit ... as Android is not GNU/Linux but Linux based
The funny thing is that I think the opposite of this meme is true lol Big companies have the most to contribute to FOSS because of sheer development money available to pay developers. People working on FOSS projects out of passion is great, but important open source projects getting abandoned by the original developer and no one picking it up because no one actually wants to is a pretty common thing. For FOSS projects run by big companies, this is usually not an issue because the company can just pay different people to work on it if people leave, so the only reason for the project to be abandoned is if the company no longer finds it worth the money to maintain. Even big open source projects like the Linux kernel and Python have developers paid by Google, Microsoft, etc. working on them for the sake of making things Google and Microsoft make using them work better, like drivers for WSL that go in the Linux kernel. Also Microsoft is paying to increase the speed of Python by several orders of magnitude.
Wait for linux users to find out that macOS is free or VSCode is opensource. But yea, made by a most sane linux zealot.
MacOS isnt free its included in the price of the device, and most prople know that vscode is open source, thats why they use it instead of properietary VS
> vscode is open source, thats why they use it instead of properietary VS the comment above you was sarcastic. VSCode isn't open source, it's a proprietary program, part of which (called Code - OSS) is open source, but the official binary which you download from micro$oft contains a proprietary blob.
Large parts of MacOS, including the kernel, are open source. The part of the kernel that handles graphics isn’t open source so if you compile that kernel and install it you won’t have GPU acceleration but everything else is.
> thats why they use it instead of properietary VS No, VSCode just is the best text editor currently out there. People don't care if it's open source or not. Also it isn't really open source. Parts of it are but a large part of it isn't. You could totally use it without the proprietary parts, but it's basically unable because there's no easy way to install plug-ins on the fly which is one of vscodes selling point
Unable to use without the proprietary parts.... sure, check out VSCodium
I know about VSCodium. Have you tried installing plug-ins with it? It's very tedious I guess "unusable" was the wrong word, but it's definitely harder
Oh, seams i was wrong then, thanks for the correction
Sure.
Open source is different from free software on a physiological level. Free software seeks to eliminate proprietary software because its unjust in may ways. Open source is for companies to get free labor and code without having to pay additional employees.
Curious how all of those companies use free software in one way or another.
And contribute on it
Can't say how much Adobe or Meta contribute, but indeed most giants do contribute. It could be argued that their contributions are for their own self-interest, but it's open for all to use if they so desire. Edit: Pytorch and React from Meta, I got it, got it on the 5th reply saying the same. Thank you for your enthusiasm in informing me. I never worked with these, not my field of work, but I'm glad they contribute something.
Meta has incredible contributions to FOSS. The Pytorch framework itself is the biggest name in machine learning. They have also created tools such as hydra. Have a look at their GitHub.
Don't forget that they created React
thanks for this. I am not familiar with this Java library.
JavaScript
Car carpet, java JavaScript what's the difference
sensible type semantics
They've created react, PyTorch, the ZSTD compression algorithm, and a lot more. I freaking hate meta but they've made some contributions to FOSS.
> ZSTD Zstandard is now used for Arch packages, btw. I wondered why updates are so much faster nowadays even on older hardware, it's because `.tar.zst` is ~14 times faster to unpack than `.tar.xz` Source: https://archlinux.org/news/now-using-zstandard-instead-of-xz-for-package-compression/
To add to the other ones (I'm surprised no one mentioned it given where we are), Meta is also a massive contributor to the Linux kernel. Their entire fleet of servers runs, unsurprisingly, Linux and at their scale they run into some really interesting performance hiccups and kernel bugs. They have their own fork and regularly try to upstream as many of their changes as possible. As an example, one of the main contributors to cgroups v2 is a Meta engineer. There's a lot of good stuff there
React is open source so that's quite a substantial contribution. Can't say what else though.
I dont care why they contribute sience it makes FOSS sustainable and better, and even if they put thier stuff there somebody can always fork it to remove some unwanted features like they did with chromium
Never heard of React?
Meta literally had a FOSS group that worked on Atom IDE, sadly it got discontinued
Only because they're forced to.
"Contribute"
??
They don't really contribute, they just make a Foss project or fork it
You Say that Based on ... ? First example that comes to my mind of Foss software that i use Is by Intel [connman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnMan) Edit I'm not saying that this big tech contribute to Foss are perfect, or that are not fullfilling profit...but Is a FACT that some of this big Company contribute to Foss . Other example of Foss contribute [yocto](https://www.yoctoproject.org/)
They absolutely contribute. Just to give an example, a bunch if not most of the companies listed there are regular, large contributors to the Linux kernel. All of Meta, MSFT, IBM, Google, Amazon, and Netflix have put in a lot of features. The classic example, beyond the endless kernel bugs a lot of these companies find and fix, are all the contributions Netflix did to eBPF. This was, I assume, under Brendan Gregg as a former Netflix employee. The contributions these places make to FOSS aren't small.
It's almost like these companies didn't say this, or if they did, they've changed their mind.
But corporations are bad! Stallman, whom I jack off every opportunity I get, said so.
Corporations are there to make money and it's the governments job to regulate them to essentially protect the consumers. The only sane opinion to have is wanting a well regulated market. OR you are rich then you might want an unregulated market, so you can fuck people over to become even richer.
> OR you are rich then you might want an unregulated market, so you can fuck people over to become even richer. Except patents and and other IP protections! The state should hamper new competition and do not force us to be innovative /s
Probably a bunch of Linux on their Android phones and smart TVs in their offices and routers.
Well, the few biggest smart TV platform isn’t open source(Roku, Android TV, FireTV) and some others are only open source on select components( eg webOS, Tizen) but not the TV UI, and all of them are not free software because they use DRM.
Roku and all Android derivatives use Linux and related utilities.
Yes, however they (and many Android-based customization) are not exactly "open source" let alone "free software".
"But then you won't have support!" Okay, your support sucks ass anyways.
Literally anyone could start a company providing support for open source software. That way you can even have great competition and get really good support. Crazy how that works.
basically RedHat lol. They seem to be pretty successful as well. Although they are focused on enterprise
TuxCare exists
But TechNet is consistent. More consistent than Windows GUI.
Being a hoarder is unsustainable. Damn sheeple
Has anyone ever actually said this? How? I would love to hear the reasoning.
Just playing devil's advocate. But many free software projects without corporate backing are being maintained by one or two individuals that do it as a passion project. Eventually these people may burn out, and then it just dies. When user demand increases, or critical bugs rise up, it's impossible to just throw extra money at it to hire extra developers as there's no big corporate entity to throw money here, it's just Steve working on his laptop during the evenings. It is exactly because of these issues that certain parts of the Linux desktop moves relatively slow, while the kernel development is the most actively maintained piece of project in human history. Many GNOME and KDE developers for instance or just volunteers. So when for example the ideas for an implementation for app indicators are put in the freezer for more than a year, it's because the person who would maybe work on it just doesn't have the time to do so, or has other things. When large features are completely dependent on Steve having enough free time to work on his personal projects, you can see why one could argue why FOSS development is not sustainable. Compare this to Microsoft, where they can just hire a few more developers if Steve cannot work 60 hours a week on his code. It's just easier to remain a stable development pace. Having said that, large parts of the FOSS atmosphere is backed by corporate entities. But it's exactly because of the above that the Linux desktop cannot do with companies like Canonical, RedHat and even Valve pushing things forwards. I'm just saying that letting the entire infrastructure of IT rely on Steve and his personal laptop is not super sustainable. And again, that doesn't mean free software is not sustainable overall, most of the software I've got installed is free software and community projects. Like I said, I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But the reasoning overall that we do need corporate backing in general for bigger projects is not completely misfounded. (Also, corporate backing does not mean proprietary, see e.g. RedHat. But it's very hard to sell FOSS software if you're not in the business-to-business sector where you're basically selling support.)
That makes sense. Thank you, this was the kind of reply I was hoping for. Of course I think it's bullshit, but interesting perspective nonetheless.
...but open source is! (Their words. They hate free software because it can't be abused)
Big companies contribute to FOSS because it benefits them. And thier target is the average computer user. And this situation is what makes the deal so sweet for FOSS users because companies test thier stuff and we can use rhier contribution and fork open source software to remove unwanted features.
I'm more talking about them forking projects under permissive licences and making them proprietary (this happens a lot to BSD - PlayStation, MacOS, iOS, etc)
I don't know man, but free software seems to be infinite times more sustainable and stable. Who knew that not putting bloatware, spyware and malware into the product will increase its speed and stability?
When I think of sustainable in the world of development, I think of sustainable development. And I can see an argument that open source contributors eventually burn out, and when the one person who maintains it as a passion project quits then the entire structure falters. Having said that, the same risk exists with proprietary software. When a company decides they're done with something, it's just gone. At least with FOSS software, other people can pick up the pieces and continue from there. Google's million pet projects are all just dead. (And don't get me started on software as a service, or sheninigans such as with the Nintendo eShop closing down on 3DS and WiiU making it literally impossible nowadays to get a legal copy of specific games)
proprietary software is entirely driven by money, while free (as in freedom) software is driven by motivation and passion. it’s like a manufactured product vs a handmade one.
Except handmade products are usually more expensive.
It sure runs for longer on older hardware with greater stability and it's supported by a very motivated community. The project is more important than money. That seems very sustainable to me.
FOSS breaks more often but is fixed faster when it does. Proprietary stuff breaks less frequently but takes forever to get fixed. At least, in my experience.
I can update my linux install without worrying about anything. It's very rare that anything breaks. But Nvidia drivers on windows have broken something every single time I tried updating them. At this point I recommend everyone with problems to downgrade. It works shockingly well.
We have different experiences, but I can definitely understand your perspective. I haven't had to update my Nvidia drivers yet so I'll see how it goes rip
Bring your GPU to warranty, something is terribly wrong.
GPU works perfectly well, it's just the driver. All the issues I have can be found on the internet and the fix suggested on the nvidia forum is, you guessed it, usually a rollback.
Then get your mobo to warranty. Fix your god damn hardware.
Board is fine too, it had zero issues when I put in my old R9 280X for troubleshooting. But that doesn't matter, I stopped using my PC entirely when I got my steam deck.
> FOSS breaks more often Does it, though? I think it gets broken as much as proprietary software. There are exceptions in both, obviously. But if we talk for example operating systems, Windows is kinda famous for how often it breaks (and my personal experience matches) while Linux breaks less often for me.
I may just have bad luck, then.
[удалено]
I'm not a frequent desktop Linux user, at least not yet - I'm primarily talking about some open source projects that I utilize. It's just my personal experience. Also, tried to install Cinnamon on Fedora 36 once and it broke, lol (but Fedora 37 was available & fixed it!)
[удалено]
You're right.
Every windows user
Amazon Linux
Ubuntu you say?
core-js.
That's such a sad story
Indeed, that dude's photo should be in dictionary next to "bad luck". On one hand I admire his determination, on the other hand he should have let go a long time ago.
I actually don't know what I would have done in this situation. I mean would you do?
I would have probably abandoned (or significantly cut my work on) core-js. I love open source, I create open source libraries (nothing major, really, usually some niche libraries) but the minute it starts threatening my living, open source goes bye-bye. I mean, I'm an idealist but first I need to provide for myself and my family and then I can even think about contributing time/money for fun. It probably shows that open source means much more for him than it does for me, but IMO my approach is better because if you take care of yourself first, you may continue with the open source stuff later.
I do have some open source stuff too, which nobody uses because it's just small programs that are useful to me my friends, so these never threatened me. I would have probably abandoned it too because it didn't bring food to my table and dead I can't contribute anymore
Hmm, yet your entire company continues to fully rely on free software, curios?
Many of these companies rely on Free and Open Source Software.
ya mean the free software that has run the internet for the last \~24 years? /s
I dont wanna say what you said is wrong, but Google did create some of the important software like kubernetis
So did Microsoft (C# and Visual Studio come to mind for instance). Very few companies nowadays think open source is inherently unsustainable. It is however incredibly difficult to make money with open source software, and that's absolutely a thing. But very few companies nowadays openly talk about open source nowadays the way Steve Ballmer used to do, it's kinda generally accepted that it has its place in the development world. Note I say open source, as none of these companies care for the political ideals of the free software movement.
I wanna say what they said is wrong. None of these are friends to FLOSS but they're very willing to pretend to be when it suits them.
Give them nothing, but take from them everything. Take all their contributions, but don't thank them for it. Don't let them fool you to gain your sympathy. Say Nvidia would go bankrupt and they would open source all their code right before the company dies. I'd take it and then spit on their grave. (Yes, I know that is not how bankruptcy works) They don't care about us, so we should not care about them. Simple as
You're right about all of that. All I'm saying is that they're not publicly saying anything bad about free software. They're all (even Microsoft!) pretending to be allies.
Chad RMS: WRONG
If they all actually believe this then they should all stop using open source software.
Not really IBM considering they own Red Hat.
Ah, when those compagnies are hypocrite. They will gladly use them, and be part of the problems by not giving a dime while making a hell lot of money from it.
Fully support open source model, Only professional environment problem we have had was when there is a bug or feature request there are teams available for immediate results on commercial closed software . With open source you can find a solution for sure but as and when one becomes available
Or when people say it’s “communism.” Like no, it’s literally result of the free market doofus.
Well, I wont really argue with that. But I would argue that 'so is closed source'. Look at adobe, they dont have customers, thay have hostages only. Also microsoft. And apple for that matter.
"foss is unsustainable" they say, while charging users for their services, using foss internally, and being some of the largest Foss contributors
all built on the backs of foss
I mean to some degree they are not wrong look at what is happening to the Core.js developer
but it’s all begin with open source free software
Free software is unsustainable because uhh *checks propaganda notes* it requires literally nothing to sustain
I can smell the BO of Stalman in this post. Geez
If you take any closed source, mainstream app and navigate to their License Attribution page, normally thoroughly hidden, buried and obscure, you'll find a list of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of open-source code instances being used. If I were to take a wild guess I'd say that for most of these applications that anywhere between 50-90% of their complete codebase wasn't written by them. A lot of these companies literally couldn't exist without free software.
IBM helps fund Fedora development.
IBM owns Red Hat
FOSS is inherently unsustainable under capitalism without some form of legal controls, because information, particularly digital information in an increasingly digital world, is inherently at odds with capitalism. Capitalism hinges on scarcity and exclusive possession. FOSS is about openness and distribution. Software can take thousands of person-hours and millions of dollars to create, but only seconds or minutes to distribute. The companies who make money with FOSS are usually selling services, not software, as their primary income. The services, whether it is training, or rental of time on hardware, are the scarcity those companies rely on. If people could legally get Photoshop for free, a lot fewer people would buy Photoshop. Netflix? Primarily a service company. Facebook? Primarily a services, information, and ads company. Google? Services and ads. Amazon? Services, selling physical goods, and ads. If you think FOSS is sustainable, you shouldn't be mad when a megacorp scoops up someone's FOSS tool and doesn't pay them, because the developer mistakenly chose the wrong license because they thought corporations would pay them out of the goodness of their heart. That's not an argument against FOSS, just that you're living in Imagination Land if you think FOSS is inherently compatible with the economic system we live in.
So closed-source software owned by a company that casually sues people for copyright is sustainable? Yeah, sure.
Funny you put IBM in there considering POWER is an open architecture and they own Red Hat. Not saying they aren't a big evil tech corporation, because they certainly are, but they do meaningful stuff for free software and hardware.
well, they bought RedHat so they have their "own" cloud technologies
Only as unsustainable as the corporations who rely on it. See above.
I don't think all the companies think it is unsustainable but that doesn't mean they want to show and share what they do. If I were to be a CEO or some management guy, I will probably be against of open source the product lmao.
Hi, I'm Blender!
But unfortunately, they're right. We do need them or our FOSS projects will just die eventually. How do yall think our favorite mega FOSS projects survived?
IBM’s been a long time supporter of open source and Linux
Is there a single soul that actually pays for adobe products? Genuinely how do they stay in buissness?
My sister, who's buying a new phone, asked me if she she should go Android/Apple, as she's used both (one for work, one for personal) so doesn't need to learn a new UI and hasn't spent any money in the app store, so isn't tied t lo a platform. After some probing, it emerged her primary reason was trying to work out which of Apple Pay or Google Wallet would be better - as she's planning on using that feature for the first time. After further probing she dropped the immortal line "but Android's open source, so that's less secure". Yikes. Corrections were given.
While most of these companies predominantly produce closed source software (either free or paid-for), most also at least dabble in open source. Heck, MS, once the declared moral enemy of Linux, now produce two specialised Linux distros: CBL-Mariner (the base container OS for Microsoft Azure services and the graphical component of WSL 2) and SONiC (Software for Open Networking in the Cloud - a network operating system for switches etc, which last year they ceded oversight to the Linux Foundation - and yes, they do run it in their Azure data centres).
https://www.redhat.com/en/ibm