Maybe people don't remember, but the early days of the internet people were loud about keeping profit motives away. It was all about rejection of data scarcity and therefore open source was this core belief in the early days that the internet was going to end artifical data scarcity. Information should not cost anything if I can take a book or music or game or file and just copy it.

That's an insane concept now. Artist need to be paid. The triple AAA game developers need to eat. Info wars journalist need to buy cocaine. So now we shifted. We've let these dinosaurs of the past die. Richard Stallmans no longer exist. In today's world you all would demand Aaron Swartz get the death penalty. It's not the same climate.

Over time open source is going to starve to and die. It'll shift to a different model. The only reason it still exist and gets worked on today is because we're still benefiting from the model previous generations built. But that culture no longer exists like it once did. It's the opposite now.

Stallman is literally the example of this who watched the open sharing of software eventually go corporate and proprietary. That's why he created GNU in the first place. Whose doing that today?

Unionization of the workforce is another example that's slowly died out with culture.

It's only safe right now because of time and that enterprise benefits.

[–] aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.org 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If you'd ask me, open source has never been stronger than it is today. I don't really care about the ideologies, but I care about the technology and for me it doesn't feel like Linux is drifting towards proprietary systems.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Which is kind of my point. The ideologies are more important than the open source because without it open source is not open source. It will strangle itself out.

[–] aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Open source is not about ideology, it's just stating that it's source is... well... open. Maybe you're confusing it with FOSS?

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Without the ideology there would be no open source. It's like saying you can have churches without religion. You take the religion away, you'll still have the building but it's a matter of time before they're gone.

I am speaking of both FOSS and open source. As I said earlier these environments only exist so long as business can profit from it. This is because like you said the heart of what created the environments is gone. When business has a new model, like building what open source can with AI, then it'll die out too. There's a reason the more business friendly one is thriving.

That's what happens when generations ignore their roots

[–] aaaaaaaaargh@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Open source is not a religion and doesn't follow the same principles. Also, open source has never been free nor was it the main reason it existed. I really think you're confusing OS with FOSS here because all of your points are valid for FOSS but not open source.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Now you're getting semantic. Stopping conversation here as I get the impression that you're arguing from trying to win over trivial points vs honest discussion.

I'm well aware the difference and it doesn't change anything here.

My argument is not entirely that everything at all times should be free. Therefore for you to focus on this is not a good use of our time. Points have all been made. I don't have much else to say. I'm done here. Have a good one