This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
The IntelliJ products are not exactly "buy once" - if you want updated versions you need to keep paying periodically.
Not that I think that's a bad thing necessarily - it doesn't make sense to expect devs to continue working on something year after year when you're not paying them for it.
if you want updated versions you need to keep paying periodically.
But you can continue using the older version, yes?
Sure, as long as it works. Software has a tendency to stop working on newer OS:es or become subject to security exploits though.
They are "buy once" in that their licenses include perpetual fallback. Whenever you stop paying, you retain your licenses perpetually
Not whenever, you need to be paying for a year and then then the latest version from a year ago is what you get the perpetual license for
I'm happy to pay for software, but I want more than just permission, I want long term security that my investment in the tool will last.
If IntelliJ would open source their oldest versions, I would make my boss buy me a copy of the newest version every year.
That sounds good on paper, but the chances that someone else will pick up the ball if they abandon it, even if it's open source, are very slim. If you care about keeping it alive then paying them is a more effective strategy than hoping for random volunteer work by internet strangers.
You, on the other hand, have good chances of being able to learn new tools. So I think the need for this security is exaggerated.
I'm a developer, so my chances are pretty good. But I take your point.
Even if I weren't, there's enough software options out there that I don't have to pick between paying for proprietary software and living with abandonware.
So I think the need for this security is exaggerated.
Of course. I used proprietary software for a long time. Having things I relied on get abandoned got old, but it worked.
I just expect more from most of my software, now.
own forever
Ownership implies control - being able to maintain/repair, modify or even resell.
To be in control of software you need access to it's source code, and have the right to share changes with others.
"Ownership" can mean a lot of different things and the things you listed are most certainly not a requirement.
So what does "ownership" mean then for software?
"Ownership" can mean a lot of different things
You were arguing that having control over something (as in "being able to maintain/repair, modify or even resell" it) isn't a requirement for the thing's ownership?
Then what does "ownership" entail? Being allowed to use the thing but not modify or repair it? I'd argue that this isn't what "ownership" means.
"Ownership" can mean a lot of different things
the things you listed are most certainly not a requirement.
Then what are? Why wouldn't the ability to maintain/repair, modify or resell be requirements for ownership?
If "ownership" doesn't have a unified meaning, then I can interpret "ownership" as the ability to maintain/repair, modify or resell the bought item.
Then what are?
"Ownership" can mean a lot of different things
Why wouldn't the ability to maintain/repair, modify or resell be requirements for ownership?
Why would they be?
If "ownership" doesn't have a unified meaning, then I can interpret "ownership" as the ability to maintain/repair, modify or resell the bought item.
You can "interpret" whatever meaning you want, that doesn't make it accurate.
Fuck paid software, use open source
It's not even for the cost of it, I simply refuse to trust any software that is not open because I know they'll try to fuck me over one way or the other
I understand sentiment after seeing how a lot of tech companies are. The other side of it is this: Developers still have bills to pay. FOSS projects are great, especially if they're done by a small team and have a supportive community, but there are only a limited number of developers who have a combination of knowledge, skill, free time, and financial capability to truly dedicate themselves to FOSS projects.
If I could support myself by coding for FOSS projects, I would probably try (hell I just might not be aware of opportunities for this) but that isn't the reality in front of me.
It is possible, for example Evan You did it, but he wrote the third maybe nowadays 2nd most popular SPA framework in Vue.js and he is also doing other things with Vite, but at that point he is basically getting paid by companies too to work on that.
Any paid open source software you'd consider to pay?
Jellyfin, for one, comes to mind
Maybe it should be easier for people to donate something to open source software. Maybe on the Linux command line there should be a message from apt that certain projects could use your financial help, of you want to.
I doubt many people would be pissed if projects just ask for a small donation
I would welcome a utility that makes it easy to find donate links for my software packages, based on my Apt, Flatpak, and F-Droid package lists.
related: [email protected]
oh is this the proper way to link to other lemmy stuff without sending them to the other servers domain? to add the "!" in front? I've seen a lot of links before, which bring you to the other site. but never the "!"
Thanks for sharing, I find it hard to discover new “lemmy spaces”??? On here
Sure.
You might want to subscribe to [email protected], and browse here once in a while: https://lemmyverse.net/communities
Does anyone have any good alternatives to glasswire on windows?
Simplewall.
Buy... Software? You what?
