This is a great read about open source while building a for profit product. Revenue over use for a sustained product that can be better than the closed sourced competition. Open source by itself does not make for a better product, it's often largely worse. Some quotes below that stood out to me:
If a project gets great adoption but cannot drive revenue, it will die. Some wishful thinking might argue that the community will take over, but there’s been little evidence to indicate this happens.
It’s not that open-source companies win by preventing the need for a third party; they win by allowing for the open audit of how it works.
One of the big benefits of open source is that it opens the development of niche features to the community. While the core product is typically maintained by a central engineering team, integrations or plugins are often built by community developers and then occasionally merged into the main branch.
The English language is very interesting here because "free" can mean freedom and free of charge while other languages will have separate words. So FOSS should always mean freedom but not necessarily absence of payment
This is a great read about open source while building a for profit product. Revenue over use for a sustained product that can be better than the closed sourced competition. Open source by itself does not make for a better product, it's often largely worse. Some quotes below that stood out to me:
It was good. Liked the mongoDB and Minio examples.
Yeah tons of examples and software to reference.
Free software is not the same as free beer. Open source is freedom and transparency.
And unlike beer, it's a non-rival good.
The English language is very interesting here because "free" can mean freedom and free of charge while other languages will have separate words. So FOSS should always mean freedom but not necessarily absence of payment
This link was posted by thibo_skabgia 56 minutes ago on HN. It received 19 points and 3 comments.