I'm still happy to use it. It's not like they can rug pull on the data or even the existing app binaries.
I'd really like to see the team get rewarded for their work, too. I'd be sad if it went 100% open and they didn't so much as draw a market salary from it.
I think if it went open, they'd get nothing. That's the one thing I strongly dislike about open source is that only hyperscalers really economically benefit from it.
99.9% of the internet is closed source and we don't ask for it to be opened. From our ISPs, to Google, to the hyperscalers.
If anything, I think we should be asking those things to be open. If we're only asking the little guys, the big guys with trillion dollar market caps skate by. This is exactly how they want it. Fewer gradients for small players to grow.
I do ask for that and generally refuse to use closed source sw.
But... something being opensource doesnt always mean you can change stuff. Like signal-desktop that has build process so badly convoluted that even gentoo doesnt build it itself. (has it improved already?)
1) Modern 2010s era "OSI Approved open source" is a meme built by hyperscalers to get free work, poach the efforts of others (Amazon makes hundreds of millions on Redis, Elasticsearch, etc.) and eliminate the threat of smaller players.
There are great things like Linux and Blender and ffmpeg. But there is also a concerted battle waged by trillion dollar companies against us using "open" to salt the field of any kind of economic growth salient.
By being completely open and not keeping some leverage, you ensure you cannot make the same revenues the big companies can. And they will outspend and outgrow you. They will encircle and even find a way to grow off of your labor while you don't see so much as a dime.
2) You wouldn't be on the internet right now if you really refused to use closed source. The binary blobs in your hardware, your ISP, your wifi. Not even Stallman can do it.
I love open source. But I hate how difficult it is to make money. And I hate how the big players have used it to enrich and entrench themselves by making it just the crust of their closed source empires.
> From what I see of the pricing options in your business model, having your code released under a FOSS licence would make no difference to how you make money.
Except that making their client FOSS would help a lot to replicate the APIs and create a FOSS server, which would definitely make a difference on how they make money.
> It's not like they can rug pull on the data or even the existing app binaries.
This.
I spend 6 months to export 100K notes from Evernote mostly because they intentionally throttle the exports to a limit and you can extract it only in their proprietary format that truncates some data.
Most of what he is complaining about are regulations, which has more to do with a free or a closed market economy rather than the ownership and investment into the production mechanisms
Ah my bad. I was mostly talking about people wanting govt to intervene with prices of things they're buying (employee time, hospital visit, google play store). Apologies, english isn't my first language.
FWIW I think the meaning is clear — "socialism for X, capitalism for Y" is a pretty common template that people use in the exact way as your blog post, even if it doesn't exactly fit the dictionary definition of either word.
The verge article paints a different picture, which I kind of agreed with (as someone who has grown as a developer in last 5-10 years). But then again, I haven't contributed to Linux so it might be a bad thing. FWIW, the problem with email clients seem to be with Google and Apple. My Outlook mail client handles the text email very well!
Been using this for a month, the app is very well designed, and $5 is nothing compared to joy I get by collecting colours during commute and sharing the exact code when I am trying to design with physical world as an inspiration.
It's an early implementation of the same idea as the mouse scroll wheel. Engage scroll lock, and the arrow keys are used for scrolling the current text view instead of moving the cursor.
The idea of also using it to pause scrolling console text, I think, originated in Linux.
There was a PC Magazine utility from the 80s, WAITASEC.COM, that allowed you to use Scroll Lock to page through command output that had scrolled off the screen.
On a Linux/Unix non-X system terminal, enabling Scroll Lock makes the Up and Down arrows function like a scroll wheel instead of iterating over command history like they usually would.
I think only Lotus 1-2-3 actually used it, but Lotus 1-2-3 was literally the entire reason to use early PCs. With Scroll Lock active, in Lotus the movement keys would shift the whole spreadsheet, keeping the current cell highlight steady on the screen, rather than move the current cell highlight.
Numlock would make a lot more sense if fullsize keyboards both didn't have arrow keys at all and also split the 0 numpad key into numlock & 0, so that way it's easier/simpler/ergonomic to toggle. We could also do away with Page Up, Page Down, Home, End, Delete, and Insert, since they're already integrated into the numlock key.
That original keyboard did not have separate arrow and pgup/pgdown (cursor control) keys, and numlock was how one toggled between the calculator keypad being 'numbers' vs. cursor controls (see the image above). The current 'separated' cursor controls and number pad layout arrived sometime during the IBM AT era, and at that point the 'numlock' key started to make less sense. It was kept around for backwards compatibility with old software that used the state of the numlock key to change its behavior (and/or that relied on the exact scan codes output by the number keypad in combination with the state of the numlock bit).
You see, my comment was made because I do believe that numlock makes sense. The ANSI layout is wider than it needs to be because of duplicate keys separating the main area from the numpad. Remove those keys, move the numpad further in, put numlock in a more ergonomic spot, and now they everyday keyboard has become more compact, ergonomic, and useful.
VC will not participate in the next round, or vote favourably with founders in next board meeting, or spread false news about work ethics or some other crap, which can lead to a down round. Have seen all the three happen.
> I've lately seen myself using the !g flag for a lot of my searches because it seems inevitable when DDG results don't match up.
DDG and Verbatim-mode Google searches are pretty equivalent, in my experience. Google seems better because it makes the assumption that what you "really" want is what everyone else wanted, which is annoying when it's actually getting it wrong.
Huh, surprisingly for me it was the opposite. I tried to switch to DDG 4,3,2 years ago, eventually coming back to Google due to the need to use !g very often. But in the last year or so it became a non-issue, so I finally switched.
