If I had to make a guess, it is for the same reason that people will pay more for free shipping: they simply aren't doing the math. Of course, there could also be other reasons, things like people valuing their free time differently. Just because your employer is willing to pay $N/hour doesn't mean you are losing $N by waiting in line for an hour.
> Just because your employer is willing to pay $N/hour doesn't mean you are losing $N by waiting in line for an hour.
Most people do nothing with their time. You're not being paid to watch TV or play video games. Learning is perhaps the only thing that pays, and it's not cash nor immediate.
>> Sadly you are atypical and the vast majority are freeloaders
> Citation needed.
I think we need to agree upon a definition of freeloader before citing sources to support the claim. I've found that many people who use the word have a much more transactional view of the world than I do.
No disagreement there, except the early web was not about scale. The sites you visited may have been created by someone as a hobby, a university professor outlining their courses or research, a government funded organization opening up their resources to the public, a non-profit organization providing information to the public or other professionals, or companies providing information and support for their products (in the way they rarely do today).
> people need to eat, pay for rent
Those people were either creating small sites in their spare time, or were paid to work on larger sites by their employer.
There were undoubtedly gaps in the non-commercial web. On the other hand, I'm not sure that commercializing the web filled those gaps. If anything, it is so "loud" that the web of today feels smaller and less diverse than the web of the 1990's.
I agree there are hobbyists, for lack of a better term, who will always share for free "for the love of the game", passion, whatever you want to call it. Nothing stops them from doing this passion or charity work today, the evidence of that is clear from the content we see daily pass through /new here. That was never really ad driven, nor would it be in the future, and numerous mechanisms remain for them to share this content for free with the world. But that is a small minority of today's Internet and consumption of data, information, and content (imho).
How does HN exist? Wealthy benefactors. Do I appreciate it any less? I do not, I am very grateful. But solutions are needed where a wealthy benefactor has not stepped in or does not exist, a commercial business model is untenable, the government does not or will not fund it, and the scale is beyond a single person spending a few hours a week on it for free.
These videos have a certain look, and it comes from how they were originally presented to the audience with a massive bank of computer-controlled slide projectors that could cross-fade between images.
The tone of the article, as well as some of the comments here, make me think of "City of New Orleans" (a song about the history and experience of American railways) instead of "Midnight Train to Georgia".
I understand that dealing with complaints is annoying, but the response in the article was very unprofessional. Feel free to say what the change is, why it is there, and perhaps even address some of the concerns. But attacking users, even if it is a small segment of the population, does not paint The Document Foundation in a positive light.
Entitlement and, really, some of this crosses the line into bullying of the foundation and the maintainers, should be dealt with robustly. It will help to reset expectations around what's reasonable for the relationship of those developing LibreOffice with the community of users.
People need to recognise that they get a huge amount of value out of LibreOffice, for which they aren't required to pay a penny, so it's not unreasonable to be asked if they would like to contribute something back in return.
But amongst large populations of people, when it comees to free things, some portion of that population will always undervalue that free thing and fail to recognise how much benefit they get from it and start acting entitled. There's nothing wrong with calling that out.
> It doesn't look professional when you loose your temper, this article is comparable to that.
Nobody's lost their temper. In no world does the article read like anyone has. That's you applying your own interpretive lens to the text, not what the text actually says.
(But actually, alienating the troublesome portions of their userbase might actually help them and the LibreOffice community over the longer term. C.f., firing customers.)
> Media coverage has largely omitted the fact that LibreOffice has been displaying donation requests for years.
Bringing thunderbird under the bus
> Nobody is making the comparison with Mozilla Thunderbird, which has asked its users for donations practically every time it starts up, with clearly visible banners
And then Wikipedia
> The same logic applies to Wikipedia.
Answering to 'comments'
> Some comments have even suggested
C'mon don't tell me it's professional, it looks amateurish.
First rule: you don't give out names.
Second rule: You don't push the fault on other even when it's their.
Third rule: you don't answer to 'comments', 'tweets', and so on. You say 'we heard feedback that this and this'.
I say it again, it feels like it's been written by a guy alone, no supervision whatsoever, and who didn't have the The necessary step back.
Making a statement of fact about media coverage isn't "bashing". And when you start off your argument by characterising it that way you've already lost.
Absurd take. The response was completely measured, and even if it wasn't The Document Foundation has no obligation either legal or moral to present as professional. They are not a business.
And I think it is fair to acknowledge that Linux doesn't fit the needs of all people. The thing is, the flip side is also true. While I can pick up my (admittedly technical) hobbies under Windows, it is more convenient under Linux. Without the FLOSS ecosystem, I could not afford to do so at all.
That's true. I run almost everything under Linux. All my daily driver and work-related desktop systems are Linux for more than two decades now. Heck, we don't have any Windows machines used for work in the datacenter. However, I wanted to highlight that Linux is not "there" yet, and telling "just use Linux, duh" doesn't solve all the problems a user has.
For photography and graphic arts, Linux can handle many if not most of the work (I use Digikam and Darktable with great success, for example), yet when it comes to audio for example, it falls short due to a thousand papercuts.
I'm not a professional photographer though. I'm also not a professional musician, either.
Yet, Darktable allows me to process my RAWs to a point which I like. Similarly, my audio equipment allows me to create some music which I like, too.
I didn't push Darktable to professional levels, but I believe it can match bigger tools for what I want to do with it. I don't do photo manipulation, for example. Just process RAWs. I expect the same from my audio equipment for my music endeavors.
That's the thing, not everyone is a professional photographer. Open source tools are fine for many of us. They are also great to get a taste of a field, to learn the basics, without a massive investment.
You don't have to be everything to everyone. You just have to satisfy a need.
Been there, done that, and all without the benefit of a home Internet connection. I also created a couple of scripts that I could run on my desktop computer to install new software or update my operating system. After running the scripts on my computer, I would wander over to the library with nothing more than my phone to download the packages along with grabbing some videos to watch offline.
The issue isn't really living with 500 MB/month of data. For most people, it will simply be knowing that you can do that. The next issue they will face is having the technical ability to actually do so. Then, once you've done all of that, the question will remain: will they be interested in the stripped down Internet. A lot of us who frequent HN may be since the results will still reflect our interests. There are people on IRC who we would want to talk to. There is a slant towards tech sites with RSS. And so on. That isn't going to be reflected in sites targeted at a general audience.
The syntax of languages like Lisp and Forth are so fundamentally different that they don't need an explicit statement separator. You don't have to think about many other things either, or I should say you don't have to think about them in the same way. Consider how much simpler the order of operations is in those languages.
reply