Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Open Source Businesses Linux Business Programming The Almighty Buck Linux

Elementary OS: Why We Make You Type "$0" 208

jones_supa writes Open source software can always be acquired without charge, but can still incur significant development costs. Elementary OS wants to make people aware of this, and have changed their website to suggest donating when downloading, and make users explicitly enter "$0" if they want a free download. This is the same strategy Canonical has used when offering Ubuntu. The Elementary OS blog explains: "Developing software has a huge cost. Some companies offset that cost by charging hundreds of dollars for their software, making manufacturers pay them to license the software, or selling expensive hardware with the OS included. Others offset it by mining user data and charging companies to target ads to their users. [...] If we want to see the world of open source software grow, we should encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it'll be underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and advertising. And nobody wants that future." Currently the only people who have received money for working on Elementary OS have been community members through their bounty program.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elementary OS: Why We Make You Type "$0"

Comments Filter:
  • So presumably..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:24PM (#49032509)
    these guys think they should type $0 everytime they checkout source code from the upstream projects where the vast majority of the work actually occurs?
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:48PM (#49032733) Journal

      There isn't a moderation score high enough. Incredibly insightful post.

    • by njnnja ( 2833511 )

      No of course not. They only keep a prorated part of their contributions to reflect the work that they have actually done and pass the bulk of it to the original writers of the code (or Canonical, the Linux Foundation, or FSF to the extent that they can't track down the original authors). It says right there in the blog posting...

      Hmmm it's there somewhere...they say

      "We believe that if we want to see the world of open source software grow and compete at the same level as closed source software, we should encourage users to pay for its development;"

      so I'm sure they are doing their part to pay for its development.

    • Creating software isn't cheap, or effortless, however once it is completed it can be duplicated and shared at near no additional costs.
      So using good old Economics 101 supply and demand you have a fixed demand, and an infinite supply, so the market rate for any software is near $0.00 below the cost to make it. Software does want to be free.

      The old RMS model of making money off of software is selling the distribution. Putting it on Tape, Disk, CD... Some physical media, then you can add manuals to jack up th

      • by Mandrel ( 765308 )

        Creating software isn't cheap, or effortless, however once it is completed it can be duplicated and shared at near no additional costs. So using good old Economics 101 supply and demand you have a fixed demand, and an infinite supply, so the market rate for any software is near $0.00 below the cost to make it. Software does want to be free.

        I don't know why more open source projects don't just charge for their software. Sure this removes Freedom 0 (the freedom to run), so it's not (big-O) Open Source. But it preserves all the important tinkering freedoms, especially if original authors get a cut from sale of derived works.

        What you wrote above implies that most users will pirate anything not completely locked down. I don't think that's true, especially for business users, and especially if a purchase comes with support. Charging is better th

        • I don't know why more open source projects don't just charge for their software. Sure this removes Freedom 0 (the freedom to run), so it's not (big-O) Open Source.

          The GPL lets you charge for software. The problem is that whoever you sell it to can then distribute it willy-nilly, and who's going to pay you for a copy when they can just download it for free somewhere?

          I don't think that's true, especially for business users, and especially if a purchase comes with support.

          This is precisely why businesses lik

          • by Mandrel ( 765308 )

            I don't know why more open source projects don't just charge for their software. Sure this removes Freedom 0 (the freedom to run), so it's not (big-O) Open Source.

            The GPL lets you charge for software. The problem is that whoever you sell it to can then distribute it willy-nilly, and who's going to pay you for a copy when they can just download it for free somewhere?

            I'm advocating a nearly-Free licence where the purchaser can indeed distribute the software willy-nilly (altered or unaltered), but the recipient cannot run it until they pay the development chain. To ensure this point is brought to the software recipients' attention, you would need a licence condition that prevented removal of a small bit of code that checked for the presence of a licence file, plus non-distribution of those licence files. (Easily hacked, but it takes an act of will that brings the law and

      • Now with nearly everyone with high-enough speed internet access, such physical distribution of software is antiquated. And not a good business model.

        It's a great business model. I quite like the nice printed books of artwork and stories I got with older games. Reading that stuff in a PDF is damn boring. Give me a dead tree, please (but remember to plant a replacement).

    • If you paid for all of the open source software that they checked out then it would apparently be worth the price of Windows or OSX: $199. So asking for 1 keystroke seems pretty fair. If 99.9% of the workers are happy to work for free and .1% feel like their time is worth 1 keystroke per user then you're looking at a perfectly reasonable transaction.

      Also I would point out that perhaps a "vast majority" of the linux ecosystem is where it is today thanks to paid contributors aka Red Hat, Sun, MySQL AB, In

      • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @10:51PM (#49035273)

        Relevant quote:

        An analysis of the 2.8 million lines of code that were contributed to the Linux kernel between December 24, 2008 and January 10, 2010, reveals 75 percent of Linux code is now written by paid developers. The three biggest Linux code contributors are Red Hat, Intel and IBM.
        The most striking aspect of the analysis, however, was where those lines of code originated from. 18% of contributions to the kernel were made without a specific corporate affiliation, suggesting true volunteer efforts. An additional 7% weren't classified. The remainder were from people working for specific companies in roles where developing that code was a major requirement. "75% of the code comes from people paid to do it," Corbet said.

        Within that field, Red Hat topped that chart with 12%, followed by Intel with 8%, IBM and Novell with 6% each, and Oracle 3%. Despite the clear commercial rivalry between those players, central kernel development worked well, Corbet noted.
        More info at APC.

      • Also I would point out that perhaps a "vast majority" of the linux ecosystem is where it is today thanks to paid contributors aka Red Hat, Sun, MySQL AB, Intel, Oracle, Ubuntu, Google and yes even Microsoft.

        I'm going to call bullshit on this one: what did Microsoft contribute to the Linux ecosystem? I can't think of a single thing, except perhaps for the recently open-sourced .NET stuff which no one uses (yet, maybe that'll change, but for now it isn't exactly popular).

        I also call bullshit on Oracle. Wha

  • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:24PM (#49032517)

    $0

    • Wait... (Score:5, Funny)

      by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:31PM (#49032581)

      ...create software, offer it for free, and then whine no one is paying you.

      I see.

      • The problem is elementary, my dear Watson - they didn't create the OS that they're selling.

        99% of all linux distros could DIAF and nobody would notice the difference. They all use the same software, the same kernel, the same window managers, the same services ... come on, enough already!

        Both linux and android are suffering from fragmentation. About the only free OS that isn't is BSD, with FreeBSD being more popular than all the other *BSDs combined.

        I blame the GPL for much of this. Getting the software f

        • How much of Android suffers from fragmentation? Can either Cyanogenmod or Replicant be considered forks?
  • TL;DR (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:27PM (#49032541)

    We 'make' you type 0$, then we write a lengthy blog post about why you're evil and cheating the system for not paying us for our ubuntu clone we slapped a osx knock-off UI on.

    They really aren't 'developing' anything, sure putting together a nice interface takes work but they really aren't doing anything a determined user couldn't do themselves. Besides that, do they even send patches up stream? Do they fix security issues or send patches upstream? Or do they just feed off ubuntu and debian?

    This is an absolutely disgusting stance and I can't wait to see this distro fade into obscurity.

    • Hell, it was ALREADY obscure. This is the first time I think I've ever heard it even mentioned.

      • Re:TL;DR (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:48PM (#49032737) Journal

        Mission accomplished...

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Go Check Distrowatch.
        http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity.

        It was the #8 Distro in 2014, and the #6 Distro in the last 3 Months.

        I use it personally... and while I'm probably going to switch to CrunchBang... elementary OS Luna has been been a pleasure to use.
        It's faster/more responsive than Vanilla Ubuntu with Unity, and has more functionality.
        While the Beta version, Currently in development, is an .iso that's over 800mb... Luna was small enough to still fit on a CDROM.

        Most Slashdotters will p

    • by mlts ( 1038732 )

      This is the first time I've read about this distro... and instead of reading about their UI improvements, it is their way of trying to add revenue streams?

      I'm guessing they are subscribing to the "all publicity is good publicity" school of thought. However, there are many good distros out there already and the fact this distro maker does the equivalent of holding out their hat and demanding a tip before the performance begins... ensures that their distro isn't one I will be trying anytime soon.

    • They really aren't 'developing' anything, sure putting together a nice interface takes work but they really aren't doing anything a determined user couldn't do themselves.

      and now you know why the UI of an open source project sucks rocks.

      It doesn't matter if the engine purrs like a kitten under the hood if you can't find the ignition or work the clutch.

      The determined user is almost by definition someone with a problem to be solved and no time to battle an intransigent UI or hack out a solution of his own --- even if he had the necessary skills.

    • Oh I always love this argument:

      "Well someone else could do it themselves."

      You're right they could. But will they? No. I'm so sick and tired of the hypothetical person who works for free. You know what a determined person could also do? They could make me a pizza and then drive over to my apartment and hand it to me. They could even do it for free!

      If you don't like this OS don't use it! If you don't like their attitude, don't use it! It's like people who whine about much a game costs--but then pirat

  • What if the binaries were sold, but source code was free?
  • by SkunkPussy ( 85271 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:32PM (#49032587) Journal

    Elementary OS' contribution to their own distribution is probably less than 1%. Almost all the effort into writing and packaging the software has been carried out by others. They are standing on the shoulders of giants. Why the fuck should they demand money for other people's work? It is disrespectful to call people cheaters, when they are grabbing money in exchange for other people's work! If anything, that is cheating. Elementary OS are so entitled its untrue.

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:38PM (#49032641) Homepage

      Any scheme like this should look a little like the payment screen for the humble bundle with some upstream highlights (or perhaps even some randomly generated choices) so that you can divide your money amongst worthy projects actually doing the real work.

      A little for the kernel...
      A little for the FSF...
      A little for X...
      Mebbe throw some back at the mother distro...

    • Sure they rely on the kernel and basic OS. But a lot of interface components are developed by them. The right way to think about it is if someone created a new GNOME or KDE, would it be reasonable for them to ask for some donations? Writing a DE and perfecting the usability is very tough work, especially when it comes to consistency across components (some derived). Slashdotters frequently complain that they want GNOME different, so here are some people doing it, put your money where your mouth is.

      • Writing an OS kernel is very tough work

        Writing a shell is very tough work

        Writing a graphics driver is very tough work

        Developing a package management infrastructure and packaging a large number of programmes is very tough work

        Developing a compiler is very tough work.

        I maintain that elementary OS have contributed no more than 1% of the effort of their distribution.

        I am not saying that elementary don't deserve money, but that they should get to the back of the queue and they absolutely should not demand money

      • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        if they had written a new windowing toolkit (gtk/qt) then sure, maybe worth some money if it was good.

        so the right way to think about it is more like if they forked some gtk window manager.

        the way they put it is this:
        "We stripped back the GNOME components that we didn't want or need, built replacements where appropriate, and started to nail the UX between WingPanel, Plank, Slingshot, and the other components. Around the same time, GNOME was hard at work with GNOME Shell, another modern DE.

        elementary has nev

    • by PraiseBob ( 1923958 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @06:51PM (#49033683)
      You can say this about every product available on every market on earth. Look at the baker- he didn't grind the flour; the miller didn't grow the wheat and sugar cane; the farmer didn't find the seeds growing wild; all of this is the combined efforts of thousands of human generations. Somebody else mined the coal and somebody else turned it into electricity. Somebody else filtered the water. The baker combines all of these things, some that he acquired at cost, and maybe some that are freely given, and makes his final product and sells it. 99+% of the work was done by others, going back in history for thousands of years to reach this current stage. We call it civilization.

      We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants, in every profession, in every walk of life. Why are they not allowed to charge for their work when the baker can?
      • by Zalbik ( 308903 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @07:20PM (#49033817)

        Why are they not allowed to charge for their work when the baker can?

        Nobody is saying they shouldn't be allowed to. Heck, the licensing of most open source stuff explicitly allows you to charge for distribution.

        What people are saying is they are being hypocrites for doing so.

        Basically, to use your analogy:
        The coal miner mined the coal for free
        The generator generated electricity for free
        The water gatherer filtered the water for free
        The farmer grew the grain for free
        The baker baked the bread for free
        The waiter served the bread for free

        Now these asshats spread a bit of butter on the bread and feel they should be compensated for their efforts, even though everyone else did most of the work for free. They don't seem to have felt any There is also no indication that the Elementary OS group intend to share any funds they receive with the people who did most of the work to provide their product.

        Yes, they are within their rights to ask for money. They are still blatant hypocrites for doing so.

        • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @10:22PM (#49035141)

          An analysis of the 2.8 million lines of code that were contributed to the Linux kernel between December 24, 2008 and January 10, 2010, reveals 75 percent of Linux code is now written by paid developers. The three biggest Linux code contributors are Red Hat, Intel and IBM.
          The most striking aspect of the analysis, however, was where those lines of code originated from. 18% of contributions to the kernel were made without a specific corporate affiliation, suggesting true volunteer efforts. An additional 7% weren't classified. The remainder were from people working for specific companies in roles where developing that code was a major requirement. "75% of the code comes from people paid to do it," Corbet said.

          Within that field, Red Hat topped that chart with 12%, followed by Intel with 8%, IBM and Novell with 6% each, and Oracle 3%. Despite the clear commercial rivalry between those players, central kernel development worked well, Corbet noted.
          More info at APC.

          The Coal Miner was paid to mine coal (by RedHat)
          The Hydro-Electric generated electricity because it was built by IBM for the US government.
          The water was gathered by Intel to sell more computer chips.
          The farmer planted the wheat in a public field because it was cheaper to help plant seeds and pick what he needed than it was to buy flour from a commercial farm and was compensated in reduced price flour.
          The baker baked the bread for a restaurant and then gave away the extra for free since in computer world infinite bread is as easy to bake as 1 loaf.
          Finally the waiter expects a goddamn tip because they deserve to be compensated for their efforts somehow.

          Your analogy breaks down because the majority of Linux development is done by people being paid to develop linux. Those developers expect to be paid. The people who pay them reap compensation for their investment in Linux in various fashions (support contracts, hardware sales etc.) So no it's not outrageous that a consumer product company would use a sales model that works for their business: selling things to people in order to also be compensated.

          Linux is not a big volunteer effort, it's mostly a corporate collaboration to cut costs and boost sales.

      • Actually, the farmer in this analogy is ripping off mother nature because someone, at some point, found seeds growing wild, and while some work was done to breed them into the seeds we use today, they started with something that was totally free. In addition, the farmer isn't paying for the land and water and sunlight used to grow his seeds. He bought the land from someone else, but no one created the land, some asshole just grabbed it for himself first for free and laid claim to it, and ever since then i

    • Why the fuck should they demand money for other people's work?

      Well, demanding is obviously the wrong word (see story title). But the distribution *is* the point of contact with the user. If anybody can collect a donation, the distribution is the most likely place for that to happen.

      I suspect if ElementaryOS (whatever that is...) gets overrun with donations, they'll contribute upstream in one fashion or the other. Whatever amount they do give will likely be more than most distros currently give upstream.

  • by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:36PM (#49032623)

    Others offset it by mining user data and charging companies to target ads to their users

    Just because you pay doesn't guarantee anything:

    Samsung:http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/11/8017771/samsung-smart-tvs-inserting-unwanted-ads, http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa... [google.co.nz]

    My paid for virus checker, bitdefender pops up adds for me to buy the latest version (before my subscription is up), interrupting games.

    By a dvd, go to the movies, have to watch advertisements.

    People will try to extract as much money out of you as they can, that is what capitalism is all about, just because you have paid doesn't stop or even encourage them to stop making money out of you in as many ways as they possibly can. I fact I feel it is sometimes the opposite, the more you pay the more they want.

    • the more you pay the more they want.

      You've shown you're willing to pay. That means you might be willing to pay even more.

      As for the Samsung TVs, there's no school like old school.

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      Greed is evil. :(

  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:44PM (#49032695) Homepage

    If we want to see the world of open source software grow, we should encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it'll be underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and advertising.

    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what open source is and why. It doesnt have to be free as in beer, but you do need to provide the source code. If you want to charge customers for the service of compiling that code for them, so be it, but shaming them with zero dollars misses the point. Open source can generate revenue through support, as is evidenced by RedHat. Deployment and professional services are also other methods to fund open source, but insisting developers will eventually be forced to cobble their projects like bootloaders and ui elements to adware is misplaced. in many cases open source software exists explicitly because this intrusive model of profiteering is a detrement to some aspect of computing.

    open source will grow with or without cash money millionaires funding project managers and department leads; thats never been what open source is fundamentally about. Its about a hacker ethos, the drive to solve problems for fame and the challenge. Doing that kind of work can land you a legitimate spot developing the kernel at RedHat, or working on the next Barracuda firewall or netapp filer because you've proven through participation that youre capable and highly skilled. It seems to me the only people who wouldnt benefit from this donation are C levels, management, and people who dont just shut up and hack.

    • You used the term 'open source' instead of 'libre' (pronounced w/ the best European accent) throughout your post. Nobody who's read RMS would mistake you for him.
    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      What you're trying very hard to ignore is that in the last 20 years of using Windows I've never used their support, not even after I got a legit license. Sure, I download their patches and service packs but they're code and you can't hide code. You could try hiding the documentation, but in practice I doubt that'd work either. I have filed and tracked some bugs on Linux and it's tedious, you get asked to help more than you really care about the bug. I sure as heck isn't a fan of paying on top of it. It's no

    • If you rely on a RedHat style support model you'll never see consumer products flourish. Do you know any individual or family who pays for software support subscriptions? No. Out of sight-out-of-mind. The only people who pay for support contracts are CTOs who want to cover their asses. Customer support contracts would be so hideously expensive that no company could afford to offer them. Imagine if your grandpa had a support contract with RedHat. "I seem to have lost my word processor. Where is it?

      • This isn't entirely true. There are plenty of companies that offer free phone support for their products. Some
        like your cellphone and cable companies might put you on hold forever but not all of them. I work for a small
        company that charges $35 per month and has about 2000 customers. We almost always answer the phone
        on the first ring. At only $35 per month a single customer could easily burn thru their profit each month but for
        the most part only a small percent of our customers call any given day. Yes,

  • by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @04:45PM (#49032711)

    If I enter -$1000 will they credit my PayPal account?

  • Last I checked, most companies that want to make money with open source do better with providing services anyway.
  • By forcing users to enter $0 when they download, don't they make the users implicitly commit to a statement that the software is worthless?

    • By forcing users to enter $0 when they download, don't they make the users implicitly commit to a statement that the software is worthless?

      No, only that it is costless. That's why it is called free software. It's worth a lot, otherwise you wouldn't bother to obtain it. It costs nothing. That's the beauty of FOSS.

  • by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @05:15PM (#49032961)

    I thought it was something to do with Perl.

    • Wow I miss they days where someone would jump in and post "Its PERL not Perl"

      • Interesting, the Wikipedia page does not even mention the upper case version (since it is not an acronym?).

      • Perhaps they had a look at perl.org and realised it's "Perl" not "PERL"
        Or the man page that comes with it...
        Or any other official source of information about Perl

      • "When referring to the language, the name is normally capitalized (Perl) as a proper noun. When referring to the interpreter program itself, the name is often uncapitalized (perl) because most Unix-like file systems are case-sensitive. Before the release of the first edition of Programming Perl, it was common to refer to the language as perl; Randal L. Schwartz, however, capitalized the language's name in the book to make it stand out better when typeset. This case distinction was subsequently documented as
  • that their blog is on tumblr. Fucking tumblr.

  • by Skarjak ( 3492305 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @05:58PM (#49033311)

    I really don't see what the big deal is here. Sure, they aren't responsible for most of the software in their repositories... like all other distros. They still work to maintain this distribution. If they ask to get paid, what's the matter? If you can have access to a distribution made possible only through hours and hours of hard work at the cost of feeling guilty for a second as you type "0$", I don't think you have any reason to complain, honestly. You're not being forced to pay in any way. There is nothing morally wrong with this. I encourage other developpers to do the same if they want some compensation.

    Man, slashdot is really grumpy today.

    • If you can have access to a distribution made possible only through hours and hours of hard work at the cost of feeling guilty for a second as you type "0$"...

      I don't understand why anyone would feel guilty about not paying for something that is free. If someone gives you a gift do you feel guilty for not paying them for it? I don't.

  • by shadowknot ( 853491 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @06:01PM (#49033333) Journal
    This really seems like the 21st century equivalent of Bill Gates' infamous "Open Letter To Hobbyists [wikipedia.org]". It's in the same, moaning spirit but has little of the legitimacy in its complaint. Much as I dislike Mr. Gates and his ilk his point was, at the very least, logically consistent as far as the business model for DOS went. People were sharing the OS and copying the disks which was not how the software was sold, whatever you think about the proprietary model that was the deal and people broke it. These Elementary folks seem to be bemoaning the open model that has allowed them to take the work of others, repackage it and add some of their own work to it for not being a sustainable model for recouping their investment, be it time, effort or monetary. There's a very simple solution to this, if you think that your addition truly consists of sufficient value that something free demands a charge then don't release it for free. You don't have to make the ISO or your repositories freely available, all the GPL requires is that you share the source code, perhaps as part of a paywalled download area or physical media you sell? No, that won't work though. They want to do what SkyOS failed at (except, again, with much less of their original work included) and sell something that only a minority of OS enthusiasts will take on as if it had the power and visibility of a Windows or OS X and now that it's not working they're getting bitter. Elementary OS may be a great product for the Linux newbie but with this kind of thinking in its community it's going nowhere.
  • Arguments for $0 (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @07:26PM (#49033857) Journal
    I use this a lot in my shell scripts, mainly in a prepackaged usage message that I fill out as the script progresses to refer to its name. However you still have to type the name of the script to be able to use it from the shell otherwise $0 won't exist with any meaningful context. Other arguments like $1, $2 or even $* I use getopts - no use going overboard when processing arguments.
  • by amaurea ( 2900163 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @07:33PM (#49033891) Homepage

    There's another basic form of payment one can get as a free software developer that isn't mentioned here (in the summary at least), and that's payment in the form of more free software. You spend some time writing some sofware, make it available under the GPL and encourage others to use it, modify it and share it. If in the end this leads to the production of at least one other free software project of similar size that you find useful, then you've made back the lost time you spend writing your program in the first place. As a bonus, the body of free software has grown by at least two in the process.

    As an example, let's say I write a raytracing library, and it takes me 500 work hours to do so. Then somebody uses it to write something like Blender. If Blender saves me 500 work hours over the years, then that by itself makes it worth it. And as a very nice bonus, libraytrace+Blender together will save lots of time for many other people too, since they won't need to implement these things themselves.

    • by Shados ( 741919 )

      Cool. So now i have infinite free software. Unfortunately, my city tax bill came in, and they won't take free software as payment. I guess I can go and become a patent lawyer, I hear that pays pretty good, but I'll probably be a little too busy to write software then.

      Right now, My main ways of justifying writing open source is (aside the fact that its a hobby and I do get enjoyment out of it) is: A) my github account makes for a powerful tool to negotiate my salary. You like what you see? You want more, and

    • I agree, although it remains painful economically as pointed out by another commented in reply. My wife and I put more than size person years into making a free (GPL) garden simulator and related web site in the 1990s, and while we did not make any money directly from that specific software, we like to think that we got the entire freely accessible world wide web and world of open source software in return. :-) And that was a really good deal. :-)

      As I write on my own site, there are several forms of economi

  • it was also difficult to use the write words in the rite places.
  • I've never typed $0 to download Elementary OS*. I do believe I am going to continue that trend.

    * be...cause I've never downloaded Elementary OS.

  • Pay me for bug testing.
  • by samantha ( 68231 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2015 @10:00PM (#49035003) Homepage

    What happened to "free as in freedom, not free as in beer"? It is not true that open source can always be acquired without charge when it comes to new open source software or customization and extensions.

    • by Shados ( 741919 )

      Yup, and this is one of those ways. But if I charge you money for a piece of software you can copy (or god forbid, resell indefinately!), I'll only make a few sales.

      So you can get donation, or sell services. The later works pretty damn well for most successful open source companies...but some stuff just doesn't work for it. If I make a end user centric operating system...no one's gonna pay for services/support for that. Workstations can get a support contract, but home user stuff? Nope. If I make a single p

  • Why do they want to know what shell I'm running? Good luck with Shellshock bro! I'm behind 7 proxies!

  • Of course you have to type "$0". How can you expect to get away with omitting the name of the command you want to run?
  • by Orp ( 6583 )


    chinook:% echo $0
    bash

    Now I'm totally confused. Zero dollars equals bash. Bash what? Bash head into keyboard? ORP BASH!

"Call immediately. Time is running out. We both need to do something monstrous before we die." -- Message from Ralph Steadman to Hunter Thompson

Working...