Slashdot Mirror
The "Dangers" of Free
With today's Free Summit broaching the subject of the "dangers" of free, TechDirt has an interesting perusal of why free often can't work without a good business model and why it often gets such a bad reputation. "I tend to wonder if this is really a case of free gone wrong or free done wrong. First, I'm always a bit skeptical of 'free' business models that rely on a 'free' scarcity (such as physical newspapers). While it can work in some cases, it's much more difficult. You're not leveraging an infinite good -- you're putting yourself in a big hole that you have to be able to climb out of. Second, in some ways the model that was set up was a static one where everyone focused on the 'free' part, and no one looked at leapfrogging the others by providing additional value where money could be made. The trick with free is you need to leverage the free part to increase the value of something that is scarce and that you control, which is not easily copied. [...] Still, it's an important point that bears repeating. Free, by itself, is meaningless. Free, with a bad business model, isn't helpful either. The real trick is figuring out how to properly combine free with a good business model, and then you can succeed."
Yes, people often post useful information anonymously when they don't want to be recognized by their employer or for some other reason. It's part of what has made Slashdot a success, so just get used to it. You might also want to read up on the moderation system.
And, occasionally the trolls are very funny, IMHO.
Breakfast served all day!
The problem with free (gratis) is that it doesn't pay the bills for the developer.
I manage to pay my bills -- which in Boston are not inconsiderable -- by writing Free Software.
Damn you for making me reference Joel On Software
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Can you tell me what the f**k has been going on lately with all those "anonymous cowards" posting bogus messages at the top of every story?
Sure but you won't like it. You see, most of the time that they post nigger jokes, frosty piss, GNAA, goatse, and other gibberish, they wonder if somebody like you will get offended and respond. Sure enough, somebody almost always does. When you do, not if you do but when you do, because you can't seem to resist, they feel gratified like they got a rise out of you. Now somebody paid attention to them so now they are encouraged to do the same thing again. Ever heard of "don't feed the trolls"? That's why they tell you not to do that. So good job, while bitching about the problem you are also actively making it worse.
Signed,
A Niggerjoke-Posting AC.
P.S. Of course the other reason why I post niggerjokes is to illustrate the stupidity of getting upset over the things said by random people on the Internet. You're welcome.
In some places that may be true, but the big guys have (or once upon a time, had) reporters of their own who produced content, particularly local news Big city papers are a bit different from smaller local papers in that regard.
There are of course, many uses of the word "free" when associated with software. From what I can see, TFA is referring to the situation where some entrepreneur somehow believes that he can make massive amounts of money by getting others to do his work for free. Obviously, his plan is destined to fail and then our intripid entrepreneur gets all pissey about how the model broken because it sure couldn't have been anything he did wrong.
He looks at us like we are so many lab rats. He fully believes that all he has to do is figure out where to place the cheese and we will all go crazy to make his software for him so he can reap great profit while all he is out is some stinking cheese.
We're not lab rats. We are volunteers. We volunteer for many of the same reasons that people donate to charities, spend time with youth groups or work a few hours each week at a soup kitchen. Why have we not been subjected to articles about someone setting up a soup kitchen, attracting volunteers and then getting all pissey because he wasn't able to properly monetize the situation? Because expecting to do so would be really fucking stupid.
Quit thinking you're going to get rich quick off our backs; embrace volunteerism for what it is, an act of altruism.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Don't they already? ;)
Dude, these are two different things. Please point to investigative journalism that goes on NOW. Were you sleeping during the last 8 years?
What you "simpletons" aren't getting is that the crap being distributed in the old model is not valuable enough to cover the costs of production. If you want to do investigative journalism, fine; I think that is clearly still valuable. But you need to deliver it in an appropriate manner. Or, if you insist on being nostalgic, the industry needs to consolidate such that there are only 1-2 newspapers for the whole country.
People like you who try to tell people like me that this isn't an advancement are doing so only because you don't have enough creativity to see that there are business models available that differ from the ones you've already seen. The position that technology is the enemy of something that is truly valuable is just nonsense.
The term "commercial" could mean several things when applied to Free or Open Source software, such as "used for operating a business" or "used in supporting clients." However, the way it's usually used is incorrect and misleading. Many people use "commercial" to mean "proprietary," which is the opposite of Free or Open Source. However, since many people and companies use Free or Open Source software in a commercial context, using "commercial" to mean "proprietary" just muddies the water.