aevaAug 14, 2024

#poll Have you ever paid for software when it was optional to do so?

EDIT: If you only occasionally pay for software when it is optional, please reply with what sorts of software you typically do and don't pay for.

yes, always
7.9%
yes, but only rarely
78%
no, but maybe some day
9.6%
no, lol
4.5%
Poll ended at .
Show threadaevaAug 14, 2024
related
Show threadaevaAug 15, 2024

I think it is probably safe to call it here. The overwhelming majority of you support the development of software you use to varying degrees of "sometimes", which is pretty cool.

From the replies to this thread, I gather it's relatively common for people to only support projects that are already relatively mature and popular, which is an interesting chicken and egg problem. Also you don't get anything if you don't ask, but it works better if the asking doesn't feel extractive. Not surprising

Show threadaevaAug 15, 2024
Lots of people also unsurprisingly strongly prefer one-off donations or payments instead of recurring ones to support long term development, but are also often vocal about how they are entitled to updates and improvements long term. That seems to imply that "growth" is the unsaid expectation of how a project should be funded long term.
Show threadaevaAug 15, 2024
It seems like applications that people interact with directly have the best shot at being funded through a pay-what-you-want or donation based model. Within that, games have a bit of an advantage over regular applications by more commonly having an end date to their development without being considered "abandoned".
Show threadaevaAug 15, 2024
Not a lot of mention of funding libraries, middleware, and critical infrastructure though. I guess most folks just assume that's someone else's problem
Show threadaevaAug 15, 2024
The part where many people tend to expect the software to already be relatively mature and high impact to give support leaves an open question of how new development is meant to be funded, since it takes a lot of work to get there. I suppose that's where stuff like grants come in. It's a shame society is set up so the general population is coerced into being a cheap labor source for the whims of the wealthy, or we'd probably have a lot more high impact R&D happening outside of corporations.
Show threadd@nny disc@ mc²Aug 15, 2024
@aeva so fucking sad how the eu commission is killing NGIZero
Show threadaevaAug 15, 2024
@hipsterelectron I'm sure they probably figure it'll be great for "the economy"
Show threadd@nny disc@ mc²Aug 15, 2024
@aeva apparently there's been very little communication as to why but someone said it was focus on "AI" which sounds too evil to be true
Show threadd@nny disc@ mc²Aug 15, 2024
@aeva can very much see how men in suits would be able to convince the EU that homegrown open source isn't how they achieve technical sovereignty but actually "AI" FOMO is how they can get back at the US
Show threadThomas Depierre

@hipsterelectron @aeva i can probably answer, having been in some rooms earlier this year advocating for better use of this money.

There is a limited budget, and some of it got cut short because member state refused to refill the Commission coffins. On top of that, some money going to the hype fad of the month kinda make sense.

The money need to come from somewhere, and the RoI and impact of that program was always dubious, while being small at the same time.

So... Yep. Move the money.

Aug 15, 2024 at 5:27pmWeb
Show threadThomas DepierreAug 15, 2024

@hipsterelectron @aeva note that I am a strong defender of public money for foss and more of it for infrastructure stuff.

That said, the NGI stuff has always been really wet fingers in term of investment decisions. And definitely not well aligned with needs.

Not a reason to cut it all, obviously, but probably did not help its case.

Show threadd@nny disc@ mc²Aug 15, 2024
@Di4na @aeva when i worked for the DOE the funding was relatively stable not as bad as NASA i believe (there are Reasons for that) but the instability of it for research funding is believed to be the main reason nuclear fusion reactors have been taking 60 years while the hydrogen bomb took much less time
Show threadThomas DepierreAug 15, 2024

@hipsterelectron @aeva definitely part of the problem yes (let's not even talk of the FAA). I think in software it is "worse" in that funding to bring research to industry, the D in R&D, basically never existed. Hobbyist through opensource tried to compense the vacuum and it kinda worked. To a point.

But we have a far larger systemic problem there.