Unpopular Tech Opinions

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, TempestCatto said:

They do have most, if not all of that, yes. The difference being you can upgrade some of that stuff on a desktop motherboard. I feel like that makes it more of a "logic board" because you can actually do more with it.

hmm, desktop motherboards are made specifically in a way that allows the cpu, the memory, etc. to be separate pieces. In the end it all comes down to definitions and as far as I know it fits the definition of logic board - I'm not saying it's not a motherboard, I'm saying it can be both and most people will understand what you're talking about regardless of what you say.

[PocketNerd]

12 hours ago, Sauron said:

That hasn't been the case for the last 30 years of the "movement" - FOSS doesn't mean you don't get paid. Red Hat was just bought by IBM for a huge sum despite making exclusively FOSS products.

Sure, there's examples of FOSS products/devs that make $$. But largely that's not the case, especially when you start looking at individual contributors (paid staff doesn't really count, here).

And it really can't, by nature. How can you pay contributors when you offer your product for free?

[Sauron]

5 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Sure, there's examples of FOSS products/devs that make $$. But largely that's not the case, especially when you start looking at individual contributors (paid staff doesn't really count, here).

Uhm... most major contributors to things like the Linux kernel are hired and paid by one of the companies that have interest in that work. Minor contributors do it because they, too, benefit from the continued existence of these projects and have a few hours to dedicate to them. Sure, a lot of foss projects are just niche passion projects, there's nothing wrong with that... closed source passion projects don't make any more money than foss ones.

 

You're conflating hobbyists with worker exploitation - and while there definitely is a problem of exploitation in the software industry, it's not because the final products are foss. The most egregious offenders, games, are almost never foss.

6 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

And it really can't, by nature. How can you pay contributors when you offer your product for free?

Repeat it with me: FOSS does not mean free of charge. Red Hat is foss and yet it's not free of charge, and clearly that works well enough to ensure over 20 years of success. This point just doesn't make any sense.

 

Also, the Linux kernel is free of charge and yet the Linux foundation receives all the funding it needs to pay hundreds of people. That's because there's more to development than the end product; companies and even individuals will gladly pay for you to dedicate your development time to features they need.

[PocketNerd]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Repeat it with me: FOSS does not mean free of charge. Red Hat is foss and yet it's not free of charge, and clearly that works well enough to ensure over 20 years of success. This point just doesn't make any sense.

 

Also, the Linux kernel is free of charge and yet the Linux foundation receives all the funding it needs to pay hundreds of people. That's because there's more to development than the end product; companies and even individuals will gladly pay for you to dedicate your development time to features they need.

Then, by definition, it's OSS, not FOSS. And that doesn't make me wrong. Sure people contribute out of passion, but in order to do that someone else has to be paying their bills. Which shows a level of priviledge AND a willingness to exploit if that project doesn't pay them while making revenue (either through direct sales or through selling related services)

And I agree, the gaming industry has a big exploitation problem.

[Sauron]

14 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Then, by definition, it's OSS, not FOSS

Wrong, the "free" in foss is, to quote Stallman, "free as in freedom, not as in beer". You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free software is.

15 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Sure people contribute out of passion, but in order to do that someone else has to be paying their bills.

So I guess you just ignored the part where I said major contributors get paid? If all software were foss (as it should be) then developers would have a day job as major contributors in one piece of software and, if they wanted to, they would contribute to other projects in their spare time.

[PocketNerd]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Wrong, the "free" in foss is, to quote Stallman, "free as in freedom, not as in beer". You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free software is.

Not according to the definition I've been given when discussing this subject with others, "freedom" includes free monetarily.

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

So I guess you just ignored the part where I said major contributors get paid? If all software were foss (as it should be) then developers would have a day job as major contributors in one piece of software and, if they wanted to, they would contribute to other projects in their spare time.

Major != All. Also, given the trend of software being offered for free, the number of available projects where, to use your terms, "Major" contributors can get paid as a day job is not meeting the number of available developers.

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Not according to the definition I've been given when discussing this subject with others, "freedom" includes free monetarily.

Wouldn't hurt to check out the definition on wikipedia, would it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

7 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Major != All.

...so what? I literally just explained that in a world where all software is foss every developer would be a major developer in something.

8 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Also, given the trend of software being offered for free, the number of available projects where, to use your terms, "Major" contributors can get paid as a day job is not meeting the number of available developers.

I'd love to see you find a statistic for that, but that's beside the point. Right now there are hundreds, thousands of proprietary pieces of software for which developers are paid; changing them from proprietary to foss wouldn't change a thing for those developers' incomes.

[PocketNerd]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'd love to see you find a statistic for that, but that's beside the point. Right now there are hundreds, thousands of proprietary pieces of software for which developers are paid; changing them from proprietary to foss wouldn't change a thing for those developers' incomes.

Me too, all I have is observations as I've worked in-and-out of software dev. But there doesn't seem to be any real studies (or my google-fu isn't good enough for this).

 

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Wouldn't hurt to check out the definition on wikipedia, would it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

Already did, isn't it well known that Wikipedia isn't a trusted source? What wikipedia says and how others interpret are two completely different things. See also: " That is, anyone is free licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way ". Take special note of the word use, can't be freely used if you offer a price for it!

 

 

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

...so what? I literally just explained that in a world where all software is foss every developer would be a major developer in something.

Ideal world vs Reality argument, can't take it seriously.

[Guest]

You are just as biased as the person you're calling out for being biased.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, PocketNerd said:

Already did, isn't it well known that Wikipedia isn't a trusted source?

It's better than hearsay from random people you argued with. Do you want me to dig up the direct quote from Stallman where he defines what free software is?

1 hour ago, PocketNerd said:

See also: " That is, anyone is free licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way ". Take special note of the word use, can't be freely used if you offer a price for it!

It all depends on what the software is used for... and availability and convenience are quite different. Just because the code is available on github doesn't mean everyone has the means and know-how to build and deploy it themselves. Not to mention the ever crucial support that any company would gladly pay for - why do you think companies buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux licenses when CentOS exists? Would having the entire source code of Netflix give you access to their servers and the media they host? How many examples of free software that people pay for do I need to bring up before you accept that you're wrong on this?

 

Oh and, by the way, making the software proprietary never did anything to combat piracy. If people didn't want to pay for software they just wouldn't.

1 hour ago, PocketNerd said:

Ideal world vs Reality argument, can't take it seriously.

Uhhh no, because you have utterly failed to provide a single convincing argument in favor of your point while I have made plenty. It exists right now and it works, you've been unable to convincingly explain why expanding it would bring any negative consequences and, if anything, you are arguing in hypotheticals.

 

You said that FOSS "can't work" without providing any evidence to that effect other than your baseless gut feeling that "hurr durr if it's free nobody will buy it". In the real world FOSS is alive and well and it has exactly none of the problems you imagine.

[PocketNerd]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

-snip-

We'll just agree to disagree at this point. I see the problems with it and you choose to ignore them, just because it works in some cases.

[65Watts]

Bezels should be banned

All front panel headers should be exactly the same on every motherboard and it should be one single cable

All I/O shields should be permanently attached to the motherboard for ease of installation

4k gaming isn't worth it yet

If your upgrade doesn't give you at least a 50% increase in performance, it's a waste of time and money

 

[KarathKasun]

On 9/23/2019 at 2:22 AM, TheNamelessOne said:

Intel hasn't delivered anything in the past 3 years because they haven't tried.

Intel hasnt delivered anything in the last 3 years because they botched 10nm so bad that nobody wants it.  Their 10nm is SLOWER on a transistor level than 14nm.

[KarathKasun]

5 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Not according to the definition I've been given when discussing this subject with others, "freedom" includes free monetarily.

Major != All. Also, given the trend of software being offered for free, the number of available projects where, to use your terms, "Major" contributors can get paid as a day job is not meeting the number of available developers.

I guess RedHat isnt a thing then.  Damn, such a profitable company based around FOSS products obviously doesnt exist.

 

Kinda like how the majority of the web is run on FOSS software that people make money off of by providing service contracts... HMMM.

[PocketNerd]

5 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

I guess RedHat isnt a thing then.  Damn, such a profitable company based around FOSS products obviously doesnt exist.

 

Kinda like how the majority of the web is run on FOSS software that people make money off of by providing service contracts... HMMM.

Kinda like how slavers used get rich off of slaves and some slaves (not all) also benefited. See how you sound?

[EldritchMoose]

On 10/2/2019 at 6:11 AM, Shreyas1 said:

I usually play story based games on easy, so that I can appreciate the story more 

One of the best uses of this I've seen was LoadingReadyRun's let's play of Dante's Inferno, which they did together with a friend of theirs who is a medieval history major and has read the Divine Comedy. The goal was specifically to see how closely the game adhered to the text in terms of storyline references (specifically, to see if the right people mentioned in the original text were assigned to the right circles of Hell) They specifically made mention of having the game on Easy so they wouldn't get bogged down in gameplay because that's not what they were interested in.

[KarathKasun]

5 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Kinda like how slavers used get rich off of slaves and some slaves (not all) also benefited. See how you sound?

They arent getting paid for the coding, they are getting paid to provide support and scripts to provide easy access to advanced features.  Not seeing where your slave comparison even comes close, its just an appeal to emotion.

 

Using that logic Microsoft is a slave to the people charging for working on/implementing their product in the field.  Because I garuntee that those companies make much more money than MS, its just spread out over more people.

[PocketNerd]

1 hour ago, KarathKasun said:

They arent getting paid for the coding, they are getting paid to provide support and scripts to provide easy access to advanced features.  Not seeing where your slave comparison even comes close, its just an appeal to emotion.

The "slaves" in that comparison are contributors to FOSS projects that don't get paid.

[mach]

People shouldn't cheap out on their cases. They're probably the only component that last for years without becoming obsolete. 

[KarathKasun]

11 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

The "slaves" in that comparison are contributors to FOSS projects that don't get paid.

Just like MS that makes far less money than the IT secor as a whole.

 

Most of the contributors work in the fields they program for, they dont get paid directly for their code, but their code helps them in their field allowing them to make more money.  It also looks good on a resume.

 

You are not a slave if you contribute with the full knowledge that you will not get paid directly and that you have a choice to contribute or not.

 

There are tons of FOSS contributors that dont deserve to get paid as well.  People that only contribute to things like "equity initiatives".  They hinder actual work and are a net drain on the project.

[PocketNerd]

21 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

You are not a slave if you contribute with the full knowledge that you will not get paid directly and that you have a choice to contribute or not.

I would love to contribute to things but literally cannot afford to do so. That is perhaps the heart of my beef with Open Source and FOSS.

[Lurick]

IPv6 is useful and not a waste of time, energy, or money to implement properly.

[Yebi]

I refuse to believe that anyone has ever actually cared about bezel size, or things being made of plastic, before they heard reviewers complaining about it. And the reviewers started complaining about it for the sole reason of having more things to talk about

[Tilaron]

I miss DVI ports, I miss the security of the thumbscrews

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lurick said:

IPv6 is useful and not a waste of time, energy, or money to implement properly.

People say it is? It's literally the answer to not running out of addresses, lol