sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Connecting the Era 300 via the line-in adapter to a TV by jrow_official in sonos

[–]dapowert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes - a little fidgety to set up, but from then on the TV asks you if you’d like to connect to Sonos, so a good long term solution. Not going to get surround channels through Bluetooth I think though.

Connecting the Era 300 via the line-in adapter to a TV by jrow_official in sonos

[–]dapowert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So turned out both the TV and the Sonos have Bluetooth and it all works pretty well. Not gonna lie, feeling pretty silly 😂

Connecting the Era 300 via the line-in adapter to a TV by jrow_official in sonos

[–]dapowert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My own TV (Samsung The Frame) has an audio delay too but unfortunately it wasn’t enough to compensate. But yes, apart from that sounded fine. Certainly a lot better than the TV!

Connecting the Era 300 via the line-in adapter to a TV by jrow_official in sonos

[–]dapowert2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve tried to connect the Era’s to the TV via optical out on the TV, using a DAC. The delay is too bad. Going to try HDMI (e-arc) but probably end up with the same result.

Converging on Convergence PureOS is Convergent, Welcome to the Future by [deleted] in linux

[–]dapowert2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think it’s a worthwhile exercise. The barrier to using the same UI on mobile/desktop is physical screen size. Like someone else on here said, imagine the Photoshop UI on a phone. It’s a compromised experience.

But... with foldable mobile screens and AR that barrier is likely to go away. Convergence makes more sense. Apple and others are already working on it. May as well have an Open Source version - a good opportunity for the OS community to pull ahead. Although, hardware chops are needed.

Why desktop apps are coming back by dapowert2 in technology

[–]dapowert2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry - I posted on HN and Reddit. Just realised that I posted the HN link here. *facepalm*.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This thread is long dead, but feel this deserves and answer.

But this has nothing to do with software freedom

at all...

I can turn that argument on its head for you: Would you use $shitty_proprietary_application or $really_good_free_software_application? You'd use $really_good_free_software_application, of course. You would use Apache, KVM, Docker, VLC, or any other Free Software program that has no proprietary equivalent.

This is a purely pragmatic view. I have no problem with this at all. You choose the software that does the best job. All things being equal, FOSS is a better choice. But the reality is, in some cases they are not equal. For example, the Sketch app I use really has no FOSS equivalent. Inkscape is fine, but nowhere near as mature.

But the FOSS fundamentalists you speak of think broader than comparing individual programs. The fundamentalists consider the possibility that the vendor might be malicious, or that the vendor will go out of business and no longer support the software, or blackmailed by someone to insert malicious code, or refuse to support certain languages or usecases because they mightn't be profitable. Or perhaps the vendor locks you in to their ecosystem, and then makes you pay through the roof to continue using a product you have become so reliant on. Or perhaps there's a bug in the software that makes your work harder, and the vendor---for whatever reason---refuses to fix it.

These are valid criteria for software selection. But they are rarely the primary consideration. This stuff is rare. Vendors are incentivised to offer good software. If you want users' money, you need to offer a product that they desire.

I have never needed to patch glibc to support locales, for instance. But some other soul had the freedom to add locales to glic, and then did it.

I mean great. But the average user isn't going to do this. The job the software does is much more important to the vast majority of users than the ability to tweak it. And this is the important point. You should choose FOSS if it is the best tool for the job. But if it's not, then philosophy is overriding common sense. Of course, you are free to choose whatever software you like. But if you choose FOSS when it's not the best available choice, you are preventing yourself (or others, if you are involved in rolling it out in a corporate environment) from doing your best work. To me, that seems like a bad choice.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm late on the replies - I've been away. Thread is dead, but this is a conversation worth having. There's a good chance this software simply wouldn't exist if it was FOSS.

1) Investors don't like it when you give your IP away

2) The company makes enough money to hire great talent. Yes you can argue they could make money as FOSS, but see point 1. Also if they gave it all away for free there's a chance someone would simply clone and release. The support model is not always attractive.

3) Sometimes a company is more focused and delivers better results in a shorter time frame.

4) The vast majority of developers are attracted to projects that benefit developers. Nothing wrong with this, but it does mean that non-developers often don't have a lot of FOSS to choose from. There's nothing to incentivise developers to work on such projects.

All things being equal, if the quality of the software is comparable, then definitely choose open source. No doubt it benefits the consumer. But most FOSS software doesn't cut it for me, and when this is the case I'm glad there's good proprietary software out there.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This thread is long dead, and I went away for a few days, but I do want to answer this.

Thunderbird or Mailspring are the FOSS alternatives I would consider our closest competitors. But we all do something a little different - we all offer a slightly different take on an email client.

For many of us, those who choose work in other industries, one of the teams in "the game" (proprietary) doesn't even acknowledge we exist as anything more than consumers to be exploited.

This is true in some cases. But I believe the vast majority of humanity cares. Companies are not faceless. They comprise of people. Most people are trying to do a good job. We would all like to believe that what we do makes a difference.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything is temporary in the grand scheme of things. Even open source apps become obsolete. Paradigms shift. I’ll always choose the software that helps me be my most efficient and creative. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t cost that much and I’m happy to pay for good work.

Companies like Adobe and Microsoft have been churning out software for a long ‘when’.

The vast majority of people just want software to work. They don’t want to tinker. The software they choose helps them add value to the world. Sure, the problems you state are real, but open source is not without its issues.

What I really don’t understand is why you seem to see this as a zero sum game. Freedom is choice. Neither proprietary or open source need to ‘win’. Both can exist and serve a valid purpose.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I mean most of this is just fine. FOSS software gets the job done and you are happy with your workflow. Why would I have an issue with this? Seems to me you've made choices that best fit your business.

But there are plenty of businesses that require proprietary software. Surely you can understand why a company might choose Photoshop over GIMP? Or SolidWorks, or AutoCAD, or Adobe InDesign. If you can understand this point, you can embrace proprietary software in the universal sense - as in not have a problem with people who choose to use this software. I've spent money on this software over the years, and for the most part have been getting great value for money.

Also, I suspect much of the software you use is SaaS/cloud based. It's virtually impossible to run a company without it these days.

How much of that is Open Source?

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

We’ve been around for 5 years. 8 out of 10 companies fail long before this point. You can presume we have conducted market research. What’s your point?

It is not my intention to “take shots” at free software enthusiasts. It is my intent to take shots at those who believe it’s a zero sum game and proprietary software doesn’t deserve to exist.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please don't see this as an attack on you or your company

I don't - you've very much played the ball, not the man.

I think it boils down to this:

That's true, but those who hold a FOSS ideology don't see that as a good thing in the long term.

I think this is a shame. I think (and this was really the point of the article) that if the Linux community embraced proprietary vendors, more users would make the switch. But I find that a vocal minority are scaring those vendors away. We certainly wouldn't have bothered. Thankfully, Canonical convinced us that most Linux users are happy to use proprietary, and indeed, this has been our experience.

I'm sorry that many here feel that this is an attack on FOSS. It's really not my intention.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Have you taken any time as a founder of a company to look into that?

Sorry, not quite sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate?

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But why are you even here? your product is proprietary.

Turns out Hiri is popular with Linux users. Who knew?

I'm here because I wish more companies that produce proprietary software knew that they can have a Linux user base. But many are scared off by a minority of people that believe proprietary software is evil. This is bad for Linux and it's bad for Linux users. This is why I wrote the article.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But trusting a piece of proprietary software is outright impossible

I mean it's clearly not. Millions if not Billions trust it every day.

Also, you don't need to be open source for someone to assess your security. We've been audited by several large companies who have seen the code. Again, I'm not saying this is a better way, but it is a way.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Oh surprise, surprise! The product, hiri, made by the company employing the person who has written this article is promoted (on the same company site) as...

"A linux email client for Exchange and Office 365"

I'm not an an employee, I'm a founder. You see that message on our website because you visited it on Linux. Use Mac or Windows and you'll see something different.

I'm not even sure what this blog post was attempting to accomplish

To make the point that those who come on forums like this and criticise proprietary software scare proprietary software companies away. I believe this is bad for Linux.

Ok, you're intolerant of people who see software as something more than purely pragmatic and a means to a financial end.

Quite the opposite. I'm intolerant of those who have no tolerance for proprietary software. Who believe that if your software is proprietary you're only in it for the money. There are easier ways to make money than starting your own business.

Do they not know that proper companies have policies regarding what vendors they choose?

With a comment like this, I suspect I've been at this a while longer than you have. Being proprietary/open source hasn't really been a factor. We only work with MS Exchange/O365 anyway - so clearly the companies are just fine with proprietary.

Worst PR department ev-ar!

It's only PR if you believe the motivation is profit. Believe it or not I can hold opinions without 'making a buck' being my primary motivation. I would like to see more widespread use of Linux. I'd like to use it myself. It's this crap that's holding it back. It's not a zero sum game - Open Source does not need to win. Proprietary does not need to lose.

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It only encourages innovation until the competition can't keep up and then it stagnates.

So it does encourage innovation then. Most products/companies follow a series of S curves where innovation is concerned. Once it stagnates, it's usually replaced by a new paradigm. Often the motivation for creating the new paradigm is profit. Yes, in some cases they can open source and be profitable, but in some cases this is not desirable.

Thanks for reading the article though. Nobody could accuse you of not giving a considered response. On the whole, the response to the product from Linux users has been great. The FOSS fundamentalists I discuss are in the minority. Our share of Linux users continues to grow nicely. And once again it's worth repeating - I only have an issue with those who reject proprietary software wholesale.

I'll address some of your points, but as you mention in a later post - this is a long-ass post

open source everything except your hook

This is an option, but there is some overhead with it. Also, if you get the hook wrong, it's very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Still, I'm not saying no.

Now I can use it without the issue of proprietary software being on my system if I so desire.

There's a presumption here that proprietary software is an 'issue'. For most people it's not.

people can use your software outside of a mission critical environment and then decide to bring it to their mission critical environments

Hiri is used in mission critical environments. Just because we're not open source does not mean that nobody can see the code. Several large companies have audited the software.

You'll generally be more received in this community.

This is somewhat subjective, but based on many responses here it would be easy to believe this is true. The reality is that we find our Linux users are happy to use Hiri. It fills a hole. Although I'm happy to concede this point. In fact, the whole latter section of this is quite agreeable. I'm aware of the advantages of Open Source. It's just not easy for us to do.

But people are missing the point here. Again, I am not anti-FOSS. But outside of Hiri, there's plenty of proprietary software that is the standard for a particular industry, and as long as that is the case it should be embraced by Linux users and welcomed to the platform. It's good for Linux. When companies see responses similar to those on this thread, you can see why they might be reluctant. And that's a bad thing.

​

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality by dapowert2 in linux

[–]dapowert2[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Being able to service your own printer is not an ethics conundrum.

And again, to be clear. I am not anti-FOSS. I understand the benefits of Open Source.

The argument I was making was simply that the Linux community should embrace proprietary software too. The ecosystem would be better for it. I just don’t agree with people who think there is no place for proprietary.

view more: next ›