AWS can make billions from open source. On the other hand, solo developers who try the same path are basically seen as scammers.
Ironic.
And creating a good user interface is very, very hard. Otherwise Gimp wouldn't be the monstrosity it is.
Ironic.
And creating a good user interface is very, very hard. Otherwise Gimp wouldn't be the monstrosity it is.
HN is a community of hackers, not business people that are only commercially interested. But Hackers need money too, so we also need to be a little bit commercial. But it would be ideal if we could be commercial without having to give up the hacker ethic.
But many people don't believe it's easy to be open source and commercial at the same time. Why would people pay if they don't have to?
I'm thinking of a new form of software licencing: what if we make a license that says that a particular piece of software must become open source after for example 5 years. Then the developer can sell the software they wrote for 5 years long, and after that it will become open source.
This would give FOSS developers more motivation to create software, and the community will benefit eventually, so people won't feel too hesitative paying for the software, because it will eventually benefit everyone.
From what I read here daily, it is becoming an anti-hacker, anti-worker, anti-individual and pro-big business community.
One of the proofs is this theread. You can see People defending AWS... BUT my point is not AWS is wrong, but supporting AWS and criticizing individuals is what is wrong.
And no one noticed this, and has already started defending AWS.
This is something...
people did, it's just that you get attacked or reported if you do so, not this thread specifically but in general
But Aurora is not “just” a repackaged MySQL, the entire storage layer was rewritten.