dpower

I'm a lurker, not a poster for the most part. And as you can see from our blog, we don't write that often. We don't really do content marketing. Any revenue we make as a result of this post certainly won't cover the time I've spent writing it. Hiri is a bit specialist.

Would be happy to tag the posts - think it's pretty clear this is a company blog though. Your point is well taken/made all the same.

- (probably) team upvote boost to trigger front page Nope - the HN algo would murder us for this. Don't risk it.

- 50% off promotion ending in ~4 hours with the tagline "you'll never see this offer again". You'll see this if it's your first visit to the site, been that way for a while. But that's another article...

IMAP is on the way (I'm using it now) but not quite ready for showtime. If you'd like access to the upcoming beta email dave (at)hiri(dot)com.

We stripped every feature that made our product different and put them in an 'app store'. This was a huge change (a lot of work and a big risk), and not something I've seen others do as an on-boarding strategy. Thus, novel. I believe this approach could be repeated by others. It's a far cry from the usual walkthroughs, carousels and prompts.

Hi all - I'm the author of this article. Happy to answer any questions you might have - Dave

Hi there - I'm the author of the original author. Happy to hear your opinion and discuss!

> They will always tell you if one of their recipe contains a particular ingredient (of which you might be allergic), and whether there are vegan options.

I authored the article. People ask us about our software all the time. We answer their questions. We have a post on our views on privacy, how we collect and use data etc. We give people the option to opt-out of data collection. Our email list is strictly opt-in. It seems that you are fine trusting the people that provide your food, but not your software.

Author here. It's not just one thread. And not just Reddit.

>However, I'd rather not have the Linux community "embrace proprietary software with open arms", thank you very much.

Why? What possible harm could it do?

>Why are you defending yourself and exactly what against? I didn't write the article as a defence. I wrote it as food for thought. I would like to see Linux usage increase. I believe those that reject proprietary software outright are preventing this from happening. A vocal minority give the impression that proprietary software is not welcome. This has not been our experience.

I make an important distinction in the article. The FOSS community is not one 'type' of person. There are plenty in the FOSS community who use proprietary software. I have yet to hear a compelling argument on this thread for using FOSS software exclusively.

There's no sudden flash sale. This has been there for about a year now.

I'm founder of the company and I wrote the post. I wrote it because despite a lot of negative comments our experience going to Linux has been a good one. Yet the 'fundamentalists' I mention tend to make proprietary vendors feel unwelcome. I believe this is bad for Linux. IMO a vocal minority are actively preventing Linux from expanding.

In this case, Linux would get wider adoption if it could attract some large software vendors. Good for everyone.

Perhaps I failed to make my point. I believe the fundamentalist brigade are doing Linux a disservice by scaring off proprietary vendors, who mostly believe they will not be welcome (This has not been our experience). I believe this is bad for Linux as it prevents people from adopting Linux as their daily driver.

> ultimately backed by violent force, to ensure compliance with this belief

This is true of all laws. This is how society works. If you don't like it, in a democracy you can campaign for change.

You seem to believe you have a fundamental right to copy someone else's works. If the author of those works grants you permission (open source) - then fine. You seem to suggest that people shouldn't profit from their work. I just don't think FOSS software alone is tenable.

To be absolutely clear, and I've made this point several times in the article - I am not dismissing the open source community.

I am dismissing those that reject proprietary software on principle.

I also made it clear that we would open source our software if we could find a business model that would work for us.

>have suffered from proprietary software companies not supporting their OS/distros (Adobe, Microsoft, just to pick a few)

And here lies the main point - they believe that many users will simply reject their proprietary software on principle. If the community was seen to embrace proprietary, which is what I'm calling for in the article, they might just support Linux.

Also worth noting that the largest contributor to the Linux kernel is... Microsoft.

Interesting point, but I think it's a fallacy. Taking this line of argument and applying it to the social sphere - you would be arguing that there is a place for nazi's in this world (I'm just making a point - not saying you support nazis!)

Totally agree with your "good citizen" argument though. Something we should consider.

> Now imagine living in a world where food makers sneakily put nuts in their products

Sure, this would be morally wrong (and also illegal). But you are basically saying that everyone is putting peanuts in their software, which is simply false. Quite insulting to those of us that do work on proprietary software.

If FOSS is important to you, it should absolutely be a factor in your decision. And of course, people can choose whatever they want. I'm OK with that (although I don't agree with it) as long as it only affects you. If your decision affects others and inhibits their ability to work efficiently, then I think you can justifiably be criticised.

I think I was pretty clear in the article - I absolutely support FOSS. The point of the article was to debunk some of the perceived "evils" of proprietary software. It's not a zero sum game - FOSS vs Proprietary. Rather they can support each other.

I'm certainly not trying to deride open source. For the record, we have plenty of Linux users paying for the product (see previous article), but I simply don't understand why some people won't buy the product because it's not open source. I mean it's their choice - fine. But it's also our choice on whether we open source or not. No need to abuse us for this choice. I am trying to remedy the issue - I'm writing about it.

As for free software being more ethical, I'm just not sure what that means? You think because someone is giving their time the motive is always altruistic and therefore superior choice? I'm not trying to antagonise you. Just asking the question. I don't think of it as a zero sum game. You can add to humanity and get paid for it. I'm no libertarian, but if you add value, create jobs, contribute to taxes...

Key point is this: If more Linux people embraced proprietary software it would help spread Linux. Simple as that really.

As a proprietary app, we have encountered quite a bit of resistance from Linux users, usually berating us for not being open source. I think that's short sighted. We need more pragmatists.

The question is, will you choose FOSS even if it is a poorer choice?

I'm the author of this particular blog post. Curious to see how this is received by the tech community.

Linux is not our USP. In fact, we mostly sell to Windows users. We've been around for 5 years. We released Hiri for Linux a year ago.

Our USP is increased productivity. Check out the Skills Center: https://www.hiri.com/skills/

Also, we're not really trying to compete with Outlook per se. We will never match it feature for feature - not necessary or desirable.

We use domains more than anything. It's not the easiest thing to determine, but I'd be pretty confident in the 50/50 scenario. But I should have said that many of the people buying with their own credit card are actually purchasing for work.

We tried a few price points/models. This one is what seems to work for us. Every business is different and it's a matter of experimenting until you find what works.

"This shows you just do not understand either free or open source software." - Please. Read my comment above for clarity on my position. If you reject ALL proprietary software based on ideology, I think it's fair to say you have a fundamentalist position.

We looked into open source models and couldn't find one that made financial sense for us.

Those traits are desirable, but not essential for most of our users. I still maintain that rejecting ALL proprietary software is a fundamentalist position. The purpose of software is to do a job - to add value on your behalf or on behalf of a company. Although a FLOSS philosophy should factor into the equation when choosing software, it is unlikely that it should be the primary consideration (although there are cases where it could be). If you simply rule out proprietary software on principle, you are doing your company or yourself a disservice. You are failing to extract the best 'work done' from yourself or your colleagues because of an ideology. Hence the use of the word 'fundamentalist'.

I do understand that by being closed source, our software lacks the desirable properties you have mentioned. But we have not been able to find an open source model that makes financial sense for our company.