Why do we ask for donations so often? Because it’s important! As KDE becomes more successful and an increasing number of people use our software, our costs grow as well: Web and server hostin…
Some people just don’t like their OS being used for that purpose and want it to be just a tool that shuts up and does exactly as it’s told and no more. I can see that point of view. Our computers aren’t free billboards. It’s like when car dealers stick their own custom logo on the cars they sell to people.
Those people are completely misinformed then. The OS did not come free. You paid for it. You pay for the license every time you buy a computer. If KDE had that then yeah it would by annoying, but they probably wouldn’t be asking then.
Most places tell you how much you are paying for it. I have to go out of my way to not pay for it since I don’t plan on using windows when I buy a new device.
“The price is included” so you did pay for it. That alone makes the comparison invalid and its pointless to even compare a free community developed product to a paid product by profit company on a revenue discussions.
I get that. I was just saying why it might tick some people off. My idea of a good OS is one that you don’t even notice while using it. It just sits in the background doing its thing and you don’t have to think about whether you’re using KDE, Gnome, or whatever, because it never makes itself known and you just happily use your programs.
In my opinion no OS manages such a feat of making itself unknown, there are always some problems, and I think you agree with that in practice (it’s more a matter of thresholds). So there is continuous improvement. The question is then whether or not the possible financial boost from the donations will improve the OS in such a way that the net benefit is positive with respect to the negative value of the donation notification (a utilitarian viewpoint, I guess). I would say it will be a net benefit, not least because the negative value of the notification is so small.
I understand this, but we need to be reasonable and avoid extremes. This software is extensively free (as in beer) and requires development support. As long as the prompt doesn’t cross any lines into exploitive territory I think it’s fine. It would be nice for them to have explored other fundraising avenues first though and have saved this as an exhaustive “final” option.
No…it’s not. It’s free to download and to use, but the expectation that people contribute in exchange for using it is how FOSS has always worked.
That doesn’t necessarily mean monetary. But contributing can be helping with user guides, or making youtube tutorials, or even just extending the reach of the program to friends and family by talking about it.
There are many ways to contribute, and money is one. But the notion that Open Source software is “free as in beer” has never been correct. Users have an expectation to contribute…period.
Not sure what part of the open source community you’ve been diving into, but the expectation of contribution to the project is not realistic nor logical as there’s not “always” something a person can contribute and you’d absolutely run afoul of “too many chefs in the kitchen” (even Wikipedia acknowledges this and has structured editing in a way to help alleviate the issues). Though open source for me, and a lot of others, has always embodied passion, a desire to aid the community, and a drive to prevent closed alternatives. None of that is based around “co-op” style expected contribution development. Hell, even Stallman famously addressed my “free as in beer” statement, saying that open source is more akin to “free as in speech” overall, but since this particular project is not monitizing and are GPL 2 licensed, they are absolutely free as in beer.
I’m not really talking about development as simply programming. There are a lot of aspects that go into development, yes…programming is a big aspect.
But there’s also bug reporting (every user should know how to report bugs because it’s contributes to making the program better).
Heck, you can even download the documentation and give it a proof-read if you’re good with grammar and spot some errors if you don’t want to commit to helping to write it.
I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time in the various subs for the software, taking care to answer questions from other users who need help doing this or that. That again, is contributing.
Then there’s simply what we’re doing right now. Bringing attention to the projects online getting them more visibility.
Development of a successful FOSS app isn’t just about programming. And even small contributions count. If you can donate some coin, great! If you can’t, or don’t want to, there are a thousand other things that you can do to contribute to that apps community.
I emphasized the word community because that is exactly what it is. The ethos of Open Source; what makes it different than Propietary software, is that the users are an inherent part of the development process in ways both big and small. In propietary software, there is a distinct line between the developers and the users. Developers have multiple stakeholders of which the user base is certainly one, but also include advertisers, software makers, hardware makers, etc…
FOSS software, in contrast, is much more a communitee effort with the involvement of the community in the way of bug reports, literature, education and even simply championing the project because they don’t have millions of dollars in advertising budgets.
Sorry, I get a little passionate, so this is longer than I intended it to be.
But tl;dr, contributing isn’t just about money or just about programming. There’s a thousand ways big and small, and my issue isn’t with people not “paying” necessarily. But people who use it for free and don’t bother filing bug reports, don’t join the community online to help answer user questions, etc…
A good FOSS citizen should be an active part of the community. Or donate money to the project if they’d rather not.
I see what you mean and understand you. It’s very idealistic and I appreciate the thought of it, but it just won’t apply to a modern world full of varied people in the way you wish. The reality of it is that most people simply are not interested in participating and it’s not in the best interests of any project to expect to change that. Contributions from someone who shares no passion or interest will be less qualitative at best. That’s not even to mention that you’re likely missing the forest for the trees, as most open source software is built upon hundreds of other projects. You cannot reasonably expect participation on that scale. You can encourage, desire, or structure an income stream to support it; but you cannot expect it as it’s just not rational.
Some people just don’t like their OS being used for that purpose and want it to be just a tool that shuts up and does exactly as it’s told and no more. I can see that point of view. Our computers aren’t free billboards. It’s like when car dealers stick their own custom logo on the cars they sell to people.
The difference is, that you’re using something for free, and you can disable this very easily.
deleted by creator
Those people are completely misinformed then. The OS did not come free. You paid for it. You pay for the license every time you buy a computer. If KDE had that then yeah it would by annoying, but they probably wouldn’t be asking then.
Most places tell you how much you are paying for it. I have to go out of my way to not pay for it since I don’t plan on using windows when I buy a new device.
The Windows is not free. The OEMs pay a license fee and that cost is passed on to people buying those computers.
deleted by creator
“The price is included” so you did pay for it. That alone makes the comparison invalid and its pointless to even compare a free community developed product to a paid product by profit company on a revenue discussions.
I get that. I was just saying why it might tick some people off. My idea of a good OS is one that you don’t even notice while using it. It just sits in the background doing its thing and you don’t have to think about whether you’re using KDE, Gnome, or whatever, because it never makes itself known and you just happily use your programs.
In my opinion no OS manages such a feat of making itself unknown, there are always some problems, and I think you agree with that in practice (it’s more a matter of thresholds). So there is continuous improvement. The question is then whether or not the possible financial boost from the donations will improve the OS in such a way that the net benefit is positive with respect to the negative value of the donation notification (a utilitarian viewpoint, I guess). I would say it will be a net benefit, not least because the negative value of the notification is so small.
I understand this, but we need to be reasonable and avoid extremes. This software is extensively free (as in beer) and requires development support. As long as the prompt doesn’t cross any lines into exploitive territory I think it’s fine. It would be nice for them to have explored other fundraising avenues first though and have saved this as an exhaustive “final” option.
No…it’s not. It’s free to download and to use, but the expectation that people contribute in exchange for using it is how FOSS has always worked.
That doesn’t necessarily mean monetary. But contributing can be helping with user guides, or making youtube tutorials, or even just extending the reach of the program to friends and family by talking about it.
There are many ways to contribute, and money is one. But the notion that Open Source software is “free as in beer” has never been correct. Users have an expectation to contribute…period.
Not sure what part of the open source community you’ve been diving into, but the expectation of contribution to the project is not realistic nor logical as there’s not “always” something a person can contribute and you’d absolutely run afoul of “too many chefs in the kitchen” (even Wikipedia acknowledges this and has structured editing in a way to help alleviate the issues). Though open source for me, and a lot of others, has always embodied passion, a desire to aid the community, and a drive to prevent closed alternatives. None of that is based around “co-op” style expected contribution development. Hell, even Stallman famously addressed my “free as in beer” statement, saying that open source is more akin to “free as in speech” overall, but since this particular project is not monitizing and are GPL 2 licensed, they are absolutely free as in beer.
(https://www.wired.com/2006/09/free-as-in-beer/)
I’m not really talking about development as simply programming. There are a lot of aspects that go into development, yes…programming is a big aspect.
But there’s also bug reporting (every user should know how to report bugs because it’s contributes to making the program better).
Heck, you can even download the documentation and give it a proof-read if you’re good with grammar and spot some errors if you don’t want to commit to helping to write it.
I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time in the various subs for the software, taking care to answer questions from other users who need help doing this or that. That again, is contributing.
Then there’s simply what we’re doing right now. Bringing attention to the projects online getting them more visibility.
Development of a successful FOSS app isn’t just about programming. And even small contributions count. If you can donate some coin, great! If you can’t, or don’t want to, there are a thousand other things that you can do to contribute to that apps community.
I emphasized the word community because that is exactly what it is. The ethos of Open Source; what makes it different than Propietary software, is that the users are an inherent part of the development process in ways both big and small. In propietary software, there is a distinct line between the developers and the users. Developers have multiple stakeholders of which the user base is certainly one, but also include advertisers, software makers, hardware makers, etc…
FOSS software, in contrast, is much more a communitee effort with the involvement of the community in the way of bug reports, literature, education and even simply championing the project because they don’t have millions of dollars in advertising budgets.
Sorry, I get a little passionate, so this is longer than I intended it to be.
But tl;dr, contributing isn’t just about money or just about programming. There’s a thousand ways big and small, and my issue isn’t with people not “paying” necessarily. But people who use it for free and don’t bother filing bug reports, don’t join the community online to help answer user questions, etc…
A good FOSS citizen should be an active part of the community. Or donate money to the project if they’d rather not.
I see what you mean and understand you. It’s very idealistic and I appreciate the thought of it, but it just won’t apply to a modern world full of varied people in the way you wish. The reality of it is that most people simply are not interested in participating and it’s not in the best interests of any project to expect to change that. Contributions from someone who shares no passion or interest will be less qualitative at best. That’s not even to mention that you’re likely missing the forest for the trees, as most open source software is built upon hundreds of other projects. You cannot reasonably expect participation on that scale. You can encourage, desire, or structure an income stream to support it; but you cannot expect it as it’s just not rational.