Don't know if they will get valuable feedbacks but yes, what is needed as always is money. Ever by financing projects or buying solutions that would develop them.
As said by someone else, not do the usual wasteful:
- Create a big global project with a tender directed at bullshit consulting companies and big groups.
- Giving millions/billions to recreate a crappy version of something instead of pushing existing solutions.
Also, I have the feeling that an important point is that "open source" software is Open Source, and the proper solution is to fund good OSS software or stacks wherever they come from and not be short sighted of taking to much care of the dev or project location. Even if obviously it would be better that money goes to European devs)
We are probably in a situation like the one of Firefox or wikipedia.
A (side) business is created to support the oss project, to make it commercially sustainable /profitable, and then it becomes the commercial offer the liability sunk-in the money, using the fame of the oss to feed the beast. Puting the oss project at risk in the end.
Whereas people would happily give money or pay for supporting the oss project, they are kind of forced to feed the commercial project that might not really wanted to keep the beast alive.
As other I don't really have the details, but I think that in most of the world, 1 million of recurring revenue should be quite enough to support a sane evolution of what the project is doing.
In my opinion the problem has more to do with the whole corporate software ecosystem having lost past good practices:
Before you were never to use a public version of something as-is. Each company was having their own corporate repository with each new version of dependencies being carefully curated before being added to the repository.
Normally you should not update anything without at least looking at the release note differential to understand why you update but nowadays people add or update whatever package without even looking.
You just have to look at how many downloads got typosquated clones of famous projects.
For me it is even bad for the whole ecosystem as everyone is doing that, the one still doing that are at odd, slower and less nimble. And so there is a dumping with no one anymore committed to pay the cost of having serious software practices.
In my opinion, node, npm and the js ecosystem are responsible in a big part of the current situation. Pushing people and newbies to wrong practices. Cf all the "is-*x packages...
This is one of the toppest things in Linux desktop.
I agree that it can be teached more widely but then it is so fucking convenient, I think that 4/5 of my need of copy-paste are efficiently done like this.
Gnome has really this problem of young crappy devs that want to make a name by themselves by "breaking" something, like Google style. If they can't disrupt, then there is no fame.
And I would easily guess that this guy is running is Linux-gnome desktop from a MacBook...
Remind me when the idiots currently in charge at Ubuntu suddenly decided to put the closing buttons for windows in the upper left corner to mimic OSX.
They knew better... then it was the beginning of the downfall for Ubuntu that no sane person will use anymore.
Similarly gnome-terminal used to have "new terminal" as the first option in the menu of a terminal. Then it got moved down to 6th item, then in the newer versions removed completely.
Here it is really not a "footgun" that can shoot you accidentally, it is really volontary awful dark patterns.
You say delete my "onedrive" storage content, why on earth someone sane should expect that Microsoft will also delete the data one your computer, that you never asked to be sent to OneDrive in the first place.
The comment I replied to suggested a generalization that "a too that allows you to make grave mistakes is too dangerous to use. We're surrounded by tools in real life and computers which allow you to make major mistakes (ever run a copy/sync tool like robocopy and others with source monitoring, and someone was deleting from the source after seeing the copy at the destination?). So I don't agree with their generalization. Tools aren't dangerous because of what they can do or because they allow you to make mistakes.
But this wasn't a mistake, or at least not an unprovoked one. The user did nothing wrong. They operated under reasonable assumptions established by decades of computer tools. This was a user who didn't get cut by the knife's blade but by its handle. The tool was configured to operate against the user's interests, wishes, and reasonable expectations. This isn't "a dangerous tool" this is a developer who weaponized a tool. The danger is the practice of misleading the user. MS took a pipe and made it a pipe bomb, the solution isn't to declare pipes to dangerous to use.
> why on earth someone sane should expect that Microsoft will also delete the data one your computer, that you never asked to be sent to OneDrive in the first place
From a reasonable user perspective of course it makes no sense. If you investigate from a technical perspective, knowing how the tool works, it "works as intended". OD Backup is not backup, it's storage. That's the first trick MS pulls. OD didn't back up your data, it moved it to the cloud and didn't tell you. This is the second trick MS pulls. Disabling the "backup" means disabling the storage of your single copy of the data. This isn't a trick, it's just the level of competence at MS.
> OD didn't back up your data, it moved it to the cloud and didn't tell you.
Now I think that I understand your mistake. You think that onedrive moves the data to the cloud, and so obviously losing the cloud version makes you lose the file.
But it is not what is happening from my understanding, and here is the very dark pattern:
- The file is and stays in your computer. (Actually OneDrive doesn't know how to store more than what you have in local copy... totally miserable).
- So it is just a "copy" that is sent to the cloud.
- When you delete your files in their cloud (in the sense of getting ride of your storage there, and not only files), only then "OneDrive" actively goes to delete your files in your local disk!
Fuck Google photo on Android that is playing by the same playbook also.
I want all the people at Microsoft, Google and more that are involved in such a scheme/scam to know that a dedicated place is already booked for them in hell...
It makes perfect sense to me. I rely on that feature. My monitor is big and it's much easier to use the big screen to sort vacation photos and delete the 90% which are garbage and not worth preserving. When I delete the garbage ones, of course I want to delete them everywhere. (And if I accidentally deleted the wrong photo, I can undelete within 30 days.)
Google's Photos application is intentionally designed in such a way to hold people's files hostage. It will ask to back your stuff up on startup without the user being able to permanently disable it, with only the classic "Not now, I'm sorry my digital overlords, ask me about it next week" option being available. What will happen is that people that don't know better accept it to get it out of their way, have all their personal pictures uploaded to Google's servers where they are abused in all sort of ways (including getting a father reported to police for CSAM and permanently blocking his account for taking a picture of his son to send a doctor), and because the free plan has a limited space available but won't be respected during upload, they'll start panic-bombing the user with "All your pictures are going to be deleted if you don't pay up or clean". This is all intentional, of course: Google and its developers know the vast majority of its Android users don't know or care about all of this and will exploit that. The Gallery app doesn't have the same Google Drive constant reminder and is what I usually install when I see the above repeatedly happen on other people's devices, which is well over a dozen times now, but Photos cannot be removed, of course.
I actually switched from using Google Photos to OneDrive because the latter keeps photos as files on my system and I can view them normally in explorer rather than forcing a bespoke cloud service.
This is so much a total joke, because one of the first purpose of this agreement, was for European countries to be sure that big US companies like Google and Apple would not evade the European countries high corporate tax rates by evading profits.
Now, it is like the stupid "flight ticket tax to fund buying condom in Africa" created by France, we will be the only ones having worse conditions when the rest of the world enjoy better corporate profit conditions...
As said by someone else, not do the usual wasteful:
- Create a big global project with a tender directed at bullshit consulting companies and big groups. - Giving millions/billions to recreate a crappy version of something instead of pushing existing solutions.
Also, I have the feeling that an important point is that "open source" software is Open Source, and the proper solution is to fund good OSS software or stacks wherever they come from and not be short sighted of taking to much care of the dev or project location. Even if obviously it would be better that money goes to European devs)
reply