|
Top-level
 @nicemicro being a professional creator does not necessarily mean "business". Many fedi creators, bringing us whimsy and wonder, are professional in the sense that they support themselves through their work (for example, via Patreon and similar services), but do not necessarily run a "business". And even if they do, how is it not outrageous that a behemoth like Adobe is holding small creators hostage like this? Why should we turn of empathy just because a small creator runs a "business"? 馃憖 12 comments
@nicemicro why should we, free software activists, not advocate for professionals to use free (as in freedom) software?  @nicemicro why should this even be an either-or? Why should we not expect to have professional-quality software that is freedom- and privacy-respecting? @rysiek I agree with you in this, as that should be the goal. You are right, and we should make business owners aware of the risks of proprietary software. My approach in this regard is more pragmatic, and in that, individual private users are the ones who get most damaged by proprietary software as they aren't even gonna make money on it. And for private use, #FreeSoftware alternatives are perfectly viable. This is my approach.  It's more imperative that professional tools be owned by their craftsman. And i use professional to mean "commercial activity in the service of others" Free software is just as much about mitigating risks, sharing liabilities and participating in the future of the tool development. For startups it's access, but larger firms should look for stability and control Of course, you have to pay up front for free software development. Not so for off the shelf products  There is a time cost to learning a new system. And a lot of people don't want to pay that cost to wean themselves off a proprietary software. (A lot of "poor UI" complaints are really "UI is not identical to what I trained on"). But that has to be weighed against the risk! At any moment, a proprietary single-supplier can choke you right out of business, by suddenly deciding to charge (or charge more) for access. That's my main business reason for FOSS tools. @TerryHancock in the broader thread there are plenty of examples of specific functionality that is missing from FLOSS alternatives. It's not just "I don't like that the button layout is different". @rysiek @TerryHancock @nicemicro Specific examples are great. They're solvable, ready to bake bits of work. What's missing isn't the functionality, it's the organisation needed to construct them. @doctormo @rysiek @TerryHancock Right. But for those changes to be made, it is the coders, who need to do the work. While features are missing for the business use case, advocating #FreeSoftware for the business users will make minimal impact. Unless of course you can convince the business owners to pay for the missing features to be implemented, while they keep paying for the proprietary software that lets them pay the bills now. @nicemicro @rysiek @TerryHancock If you leave it to programmers, you will have programmer choices. Which is most of what has already been rejected by non programmers. Yes, I know asking for investment in the future requires quite a lot of imagination and a canyon full of trust. That is why the stories we tell about Free Software have to be of an unusually high quality. Call for the bards. |
Gregory's Server
@rysiek I'm not talking about "empathy".
My post is about that as a free software activist, I'm not going to advocate that professionals use free software, because professional use merits different considerations than personal use.
Anything else you read into my posts was not there.