you see it as a failure of the tech industry to finance open source.
I see it as a failure to provide security systems like this without the need for financial gatekeeping.
$629.00 isn't a trivial amount of money.
I see it as a failure to provide security systems like this without the need for financial gatekeeping.
$629.00 isn't a trivial amount of money.
I think that framing overly emphasizes an existing problem, which is the perception that OSS is sort of a charity. This misperception only reinforces the negative sense of entitlement that people have towards open source.
A couple of ways that the sense of entitlement manifests itself is the expectation that OSS should be free and, if money is involved, then it should be in the form of pay-what-you-want donations, or subscriptions, not tied to a specific exchange of value. The concept of funding can encompass this vagueness.
The word ‘Transactions’, I think, is a more precise and correct term, as it more clearly relates to desired and sustainable goal of a defined and measured exchange of value.
So instead of the issue being merely the providing of funding, rather, I see it as an issue with the open-source community not fully recognizing that it’s an industry in its own right.
This lack of awareness hampers its ability to participate effectively in the marketplace, including financial transactions to sustain itself.
On another note, I share your view that these fees are troublesome. While I agree that small fees can serve as proof of identity—verifying that the software indeed comes from the claimed source, which seems to be one main intent of signatures—I don’t understand why these fees have to be exorbitant.
It seems more like artificial price inflation, perhaps even a form of cartel behavior.
Thanks for the laugh, pal. I'm outta here fer now! :) ;p xx ;p
Sorry for the typo! If that tripped you up I get it :)
> There's a better way to see this: once can make a statement about the principle of the necessity of having transactions to exchange value, but not have a particular demand for the offered good or service themselves. I think that's what's going on here...
You may think that's what's going on here, but I believe it's the opposite. Everyone involved has concluded that there is not enough value to the process of signing the installer. Those that concluded this are probably quite similar to you and me (except maybe that they know _more_ about the work and payoff involved) so if you ask yourself why _you_ wouldn't do it, you probably will know why others choose not to as well.
Anyone who thinks this really is important is free to devote time and money to making it happen. Pointing out that it's worthy of doing to people involved in the project who have decided it's not worth doing isn't that helpful really. Better is to do some self-reflection and ask yourself why you might be wrong in your belief that it is a worthy endeavor considering those in the know have concluded the opposite.
Regardless, I don't really see how it's a gotcha question or whatever.
Compare that to the days of dos, where you could type “qbasic” and away you went