I am gonna be honest, I have a really hard time seeing how the status quo of the mid 2000s and before of small time proprietary software shops was “worse” than what we have now. What has “open source” amounted to? Well…
1. Free labor for corporations. In web-based apps, you can simply use even GPL-based code for free without reciprocal releases.
2. Grist for the LLM training mill
3. Killing the ability of small time software developers to make money on their own
@kevin Without free software (and yes there is a difference between free and open source), we'd all be using Windows, which is a truly horrifying prospect to me, someone who has never owned a Windows computer; I've never owned a Mac either, as I always disliked the interface.
Free software is like punk music. It's not beholden to the rich for creation and distribution. It can't be controlled by the rich.
If you can't understand why people create it, we feel sorry for you.
@lwriemen the Linux foundation is controlled by corporate interests who decide the directions it takes. Very soon, I will no longer be able to use modern Linux on older machines of mine because those who control Linux have decided they don’t care about that kind of support. Yes I could “just” fork Linux, and how would I maintain it? Volunteer my time? I’d rather just buy an OS!
@lwriemen Punk music was invented by Madison Ave ad execs to sell t-shirts to teenagers, so I think this comparison is pretty apt.
Anyway, your characterization of free software is descriptively false. Linux is free software and yet in using it I am *incredibly* beholden to corporate interests. What hardware will it run and what resources does it require? What compilers will it compile with? You have no sovereignty over these matters.