I read エロゲ and haunt AO3. I’ve been learning Japanese for far too long. I like GNOME, KDE, and Sway.

  • 1 Post
  • 44 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • It’s been 5 years. I don’t think they’re going to change the license to allow distributions to distribute MongoDB more easily.

    We should actively be against corporate leeching.

    In a world without free software, Amazon will build their own proprietary software for servers that is better than everyone else’s, and will be in the same position. At least with Redis, multiple employees of AWS were core maintainers for Redis. It isn’t like Amazon didn’t contribute anything back. Now that it’s non-free, they’ll just fork it. Again.

    All this really accomplishes is making licensing a headache for everybody, which is the main reason people and organizations use free software.

    I think free software developers should be able to make money from their software, and money from working on their software. I also think everyone else should be able to, too.

    To put it another way, open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation.

    Additionally, Elasticsearch does not belong to Elastic. Redis doesn’t belong to Redis, either.








  • Normally I would retort “But we paid money for it - so they need to support it”

    For how long? 15 years? 20? 30? Should they still be supporting Windows 95?

    Windows has the longest support period of any commercial operating system. iOS’s longest support period for a phone was 8 years, Android is now 8 years for the new PIxel, macOS supports computers for anywhere between 5-10 years, averaging about 7, and Windows 10 will support computers for 10 years. Previous Windows operating systems have supported computers for even longer, but 10 years is still longer than anybody else. I’ve paid for a few Windows 10 licenses in my time, and I don’t think I’ll ever pay for another one. I don’t use it enough to care about the limitations of unlicensed Windows.

    Mind you, we wouldn’t even need to be having this conversation if Windows was free software and some other organization took on the duty of maintaining it. That would be a lot less work for Microsoft and keep Windows 10 users happy. While I’m at it, I’d also like a pony.

    When they rugpull Win10 I will just complete move to Linux. The only thing holding me back is some industrial software that I use for work and they’re in the process of multi-platform support.

    I’d love to do that. I already use Linux for most of my work, but Adobe not being there means I need to fall back to macOS or Windows for some projects. While Photoshop is coming to the web (someday), After Effects and inDesign are unlikely to ever end up there. I can hope, but I’ll likely be stuck on one of these other operating systems for a long time to come, I suspect.

    Maybe Wine will some day support Adobe’s terrible DRM…and maybe hell will freeze over, too.


  • I don’t see a problem with this business model. They’re doing work maintaining software they don’t want to maintain, so charging for it makes sense. It’s surprising to me that Windows doesn’t already charge a yearly subscription fee for OS upgrades.

    Many people aren’t going to pay the annual fee and will keep using Windows 10 without the security patches anyhow, so obviously this will weaken a lot of people’s security, but, well… Microsoft needs to make money. And it’s not like they need to worry about their customers defecting to another operating system. You can’t just download and install macOS on an old Dell machine. If they’re going to buy a new computer, it makes sense to get a less expensive one than what Apple’s offering, ergo they’ll get a new Windows 11 computer.

    And if they wanted to and could use Linux…well, they’d already be using it. Overall, I’m completely nonplussed about this announcement. If you weren’t going to pay Microsoft money, nothing has changed. If you need a longer support period, you now have an easy option. And hey, there’s always the chance Microsoft will backtrack and provide free updates anyway. Especially given the lack of details on pricing, it seems like they’re sounding out the idea rather than fully committed to deploying it.




  • Maybe a different perspective could help?

    YouTube advertising works a little differently to, say, Facebook. For advertisements longer than 30 seconds, the advertiser doesn’t pay if the user hits “Skip”. Ad-blocking users are far less likely to watch ads to completion, so I can imagine this having almost no impact on conversion.

    I believe this change, if it is successful in blocking ad-blockers, will generally be detrimental to advertisers. It means advertisements shorter than 30 seconds (so, unskippable ads) are now shown to a larger proportion of people unlikely to be interested or paying attention to the advertisement. It’s beneficial to YouTube because they can claw back some of the money they spend serving ad-blocking users videos—that ain’t free. That being said, YouTube is still probably one of the most friendly big platforms to advertisers because of how flexible they are. While it uses the Google Ads system, it’s more friendly than Google search ads…

    I missed an opportunity to ask someone who did a lot of YouTube advertising whether they noticed any impact at all from the recent ad-blocker blocking change recently, so this is all speculation.