Pro-proprietary

Are there any people who are actually pro-proprietary software with actual philosophical ideas and arguments etc. who aren't just "(((muh evil corporate executives))) who are all about the greed"? All we ever hear about is the free side of the coin which argues against properietary software. What are the counter-arguments?

Attached: 1558110885777.jpg (480x451, 57K)

Other urls found in this thread:

vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-they-can-get-sued-for-using-old-versions-of-photoshop
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm not necessarily pro proprietary but I am pro DRM and proprietary comes along as a result.

I need to ensure I get paid for my software since it is mu main source of income, of which I invested my own money to support myself while developing and for tools, and if it was opened sourced I would have to rely on donations which would put me in the poorhouse not to mention I would not recover my initial investment.

You sort of take for granted companies would be able to deliver whatever their product or service is just as well with free software. I'm not sure that's the case. If a software bug ruins a chemical process or outcome of a clinical trial, the company can sue AspenTech or SAS. That's peace of mind for a lot of managers, and it helps that these software packages are taught with University curriculum. Inertia is a real thing to consider, not everyone is like the people on Jow Forums in the sense that it doesn't take you very long to learn new software.

it's simple, humans are not floating bubbles of cosmic rays they are animals and are governed by instincts.
any entrepreneurship that ignores basic human psychology is doomed to fail at one time or another.

long story short, centralized, even dictatorial creative lead by enlightened dictator will produce better, more consistent result than liberal everyone are equal shitocracy.
not all companies are enlightened dictatorships, especially at this day and age, and there are some enlightened dictators in open software (linus?) but they will crumble over time due to various untalented coralinas polluting the ecosystem.

DRM is a meme. Your argument is for why software should be proprietary, not why you should infest it with DRM.

The system doesn't even matter. It's all in the genes.

You don't need to mistreat users to make a living.

Stallman hasn't written code in years and makes a living as a professional speech-giver. People who write code for a living need to get paid. Either you charge the customer honestly or you have to sell the customer's ass to other companies if you want to make a living.
That said, I'm not totally or even half pro-proprietary... I'm just trying to make some arguments for it.

There are some benefits to having a locked-down software product and indeed an entire ecosystem of such that makes things "just werk" for the people who will use them.
Of course there are the string of negative effects of this but if apple and its rabid customer base is anything to go by, it would seem that the masses in large part don't really give a fuck.

There are also some things that could be said about one entity (individual or corporate) having complete control over their product can be far more beneficial in general than having the masses create forks of the same product.
Competition is great but there is a point where having too many items on the menu becomes more of a burden not only to the user trying to select a piece of software for any given purpose but resources wasted on hundreds of different offerings all being great at one feature but shit at others and one unified project with those resources working towards one project could produce multiple great features.

Consider what happens within the space of free software now, particularly with GNU/Linux.
All the different flavor of distros all promising slightly different things while also trying to all exist in the same space and use cases. Sure, some do bubble to the top but then consider what is basically an existential crisis for the GNU/Linux user when it comes to choosing their distro. Support sometimes having to be tailored to a distro's peculiar quirks as not even things as basic as the file system and where things go is truly standard across distros.
You don't get that with Windows OS or Mac OS.

Attached: 1525378766496.png (1920x1080, 1.89M)

I am. Not pro-proprietary per se, but pro- the best tool for my job.

For me freedom means the software allows me to do the most, with my skills, while using it. As a photographer, a software with great masking, layer blending, and clone stamping options gives me great freedom.
If I try to use "similar" open source software with no such options but the ability to code them myself, is not more "free" because that choice is theoretical and not practical; I could never code a bunch of sophisticated photo manipulation tools all by myself. In that regards the "proprietary" software is more free, as it allows *me* to do the most.

If I were a developer, my job being altering and building upon codebases, an open source software would be freer.
As a user, freedom is the freedom to do the most and get the best results with the software at hand.
This does not necessitate the software to be free, and in practice the opposite is often true.

It's a misconception that programs need to be sold in order for programmers to make money. Selling software (licenses) is an income for software companies, which is only then divided among the employees (including non-developers). In contrast, you have people like Linux and FreeBSD developers that are getting paid (as in employed by Google and Apple, not donations) to develop free as in freedom software, because the companies that pay them also need this software. People who need new features and need to maintain their software will pay for it, regardless of whether the software is open or not.

Proprietary software is primarily used as an excuse to profit from software by artificially creating a business model around it, without actually being correlated with new or improved functionality. For examples, having different licenses based on number of users etc... It's completely arbitrary. I'm not saying that this is wrong, necessarily, from an ethical point of view, but it proves the point that proprietary software isn't for paying for development time, but for the business model of a company.

no it's not misconception, you just replaced the paying for software with deux-ex-machina companies that appear and drop money on you for your open source zero licence software. that really does not happen in the real life, at least not for the majority of software developers.

I'm not sure if you either missed my point, or if you are saying that there must be an alternative model to our current one, which is a logical fallacy. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer, but I'll try.

My point was that paying money to software companies for arbitrary licenses isn't paying for development time, as the money goes to shareholder profits, employment salaries for non-developers etc.

My additional point was that arbitrary software licenses, where you for example pay for number of users or number of CPU cores (see oracle) or enterprise vs non-enterprise tiers etc. reflect an artificial business model, and not the cost of development that went in to it. What's the difference, in development time, between making something that works for 39 users but requires a drastically higher cost for 40 users.

My LAST point, was that the very existence of free software developers that are paid to develop free software pretty much debunks the entire argument that software companies must have proprietary software licenses in order for developers to make any money. The fact that most developers do not work like this does not disprove it at all, because they still exist and there is a sufficient demand. How software developers are employed and the demand for them could very well be regulated through laws and regulations on software companies, so the current "model" of the majority of developers developing proprietary software is completely artificial and inorganic.

pretty much this, when this whole "but muh big corps will fund this free software" argument comes up it somehow gets left out that the supporting companies themselves are relying upon the proprietary model - in this sense essentially whitewashing the free project since the funding still comes from proprietary means

See It wasn't even the argument, you fucking imbeciles. Why do you need to create strawman arguments?

that's like listening to slavoj zizek or some other delusional communist philosopher.
yes, profit is not divided equally, the licencing is not following mathematical logic, yaddayadda you're free to create the commune of hippies coding for bread and milk that interested parties bring in for their copy of program they could download for free without legal consequences but decided to be noble and support you.
it doesn't work. it doesn't work so much that the most successful open source development projects are almost entirely funded by the biggest capitalist pushers of various propitiatory intellectual rights as this user pointed out

But it is easier that way

>need to maintain their software will pay for it
Nah fuck that. I have 0 interest being a pc janitor.

Free software doesn't make you money. You can make money by pc janitor for free software. You can make money by working for a company that happens to produce free software. You can make money (unlikely) by working on commision for a guy who then decides to release your work as free software.

But you can never make money selling free software.

Are you fucking retarded, or are you just pretending to be?

The original argument was: "there must be proprietary software otherwise developers wouldn't get paid"

This argument was fully debunked by my post. You'll note that I even said that I didn't necessarily have any objections with it being the way it is, but the argument is still fallacious. I didn't even touch on intellectual rights, because these are still retained with the fucking GPL.

Your rambling about communism is irrelevant, obviously kernel devs being hired by Google is capitalist as fuck.

I suggest that you fuck off to another board that better suits your mental impairment.

>But you can never make money selling free software.
I didn't imply this. I refuted the argument that developers must sell proprietary software in order to make money, which is obviously and demonstratively untrue.

I agree with what you say since when we're talking of software we're mostly thinking "purely of software" as in like an enterprise application with some moderate GUI or a server application, but funnily enough there are a few actual free software games on Steam like the recently released HEDON (done in GZDoom) and Quadrilateral Cowboy (GPL'd idTech4) which are selling well. In this sense the artwork is what generates you the money.

You need the investment, the pressure and the view of a big corporation to have stuff that actually works for the end user.
All the meaningful tech was backed by big corporations like Google or Microsoft.

>Open source
>People steal your code or break the license agreement
Yeah nahh

>reddit spacing
this explains the cognitive disability

The irony is that I thought I needed to space out my sentences because you clearly didn't understand shit the first two posts. Anyway, I'm done. When I call you out on strawman arguments and you respond with "muh reddit spacing", it's pretty clear to me that you never had an argument in the first place. Fucking sad how this place has gone down the drain.

yeah, it went down the drain because it pisses on your "organic" "non-artificial" bulshitology instead of being your echochamber

It's kinda funny how that works out. In a world of only free software mega corporations dictate the development of software. At least the most important software.

I don't have a problem with that, because it is, perhaps ironically, more free than the alternative.

What's bullshit about it? Are you seriously so delusional that you think there is considerable more development time required to implement support for 40 users than for 39 users, which requires a company to hike up prices for an """"""ENTERPRISE""""""" license? It's clearly a mechanism for the company to make more money, aka profit for shareholders. Do you think developers are paid more because of this?

Nothing that is "intellectual" can be considered property. A thing that is intellectual can be guarded or concealed, but it can never be owned. "Information" in general, cannot be owned, only guarded or concealed.

A person only has a moral obligation to guard or conceal information if he is being paid to do so. If a person is not being pad to guard or conceal information, then he is free to distribute that information however he desires.

users very often mistreat creators

Not the guy you're arguing with but yes? Developer salaries are pretty big and I think corporations having more money isn't a negative thing. It lets them expand.

Proprietary software:
>User: "You have to make it do X"
>Creator: "Why? It's stupid and wouldn't work"
>User: "Because that's what our contract says, which is why I'm paying you a buttload of money"

Free software:
>User: "You have to make it do X"
>Creator: "Fuck off, that's fucking retarded and so are you"
>User: "..."

>Developer salaries are pretty big and I think corporations having more money isn't a negative thing.
My argument was literally to make Google and other megacorporations hire developers and make more money, like they currently do with kernel developers, so again it's a strawman to misrepresent my argument in this way. But whatever, I'm fucking done.

Proprietary software:
>User: "You have to make it do X"
>Creator: "Why? It's stupid and wouldn't work"
>User: "Because that's what our contract says, which is why I'm paying you a buttload of money"
>Creator: "Fair enough, I do have agency and I agreed to this contract." Gets paid and lives comfortably doing his work and FOSS side projects in his own time

Free software:
>User: "You have to make it do X"
>Creator: "Fuck off, that's fucking retarded and so are you"
>User: "..."
>Creator: lives on the street and can only produce software from a cafe (who he is abusing by not purchasing products each hour)

propietary software is malware.
Im not against people getting paid for their work, im against people making software i have no control over.

If you want to write pro shit work for an enterprise and write legacy code.

Attached: 1541878728979.jpg (982x982, 391K)

Yeah, because Linus Torvalds clearly is a hobo that makes no money at all.... When will this fucking meme stop?

bulshit is that you call greed inorganic and artificial when it's one of the fundamental human traits. you should go to middle east and trade to see how flexible value of the things are, it can cost $5 and it can cost $250 depending on how the seller judges you. it's the demand that forms the price not the marxist idea of the work invested. as for enterprise licences, if you'd ever worked in software industry you'd know that enterprise licences are all about support so you didn't pay only for what developers created but also for the fact they'll patch whatever brakes your money earning system asap and be on the phone with you through the night to rescue your data.

>The original argument was: "there must be proprietary software otherwise developers wouldn't get paid" This argument was fully debunked by my post.
read >My argument was literally to make Google and other megacorporations hire developers and make more money, like they currently do with kernel developers, so again it's a strawman
>It's clearly a mechanism for the company to make more money, aka profit for shareholders. Do you think developers are paid more because of this?
you show it as a negative to which I reply I don't think it is since salaries are big since companies can expand
where is the strawman?

>bulshit is that you call greed inorganic and artificial when it's one of the fundamental human traits.
Ayn Rand, please.

>ou should go to middle east and trade to see how flexible value of the things are
OF FUCKING COURSE LITERAL KIKES ARE GOING TO ACT LIKE KIKES.

one outlier among tens of thousands

>you show it as a negative
No, I show it as a fallacy that developers can only make money by selling proprietary software. Companies making money is obviously a good thing and is reflected in salaries. Artificial restrictions, such as per-user licensing, however, is jewish as fuck and irrelevant to developers making more money.

Literally works for thousands of kernel contributors, just look in the list for Intel, Google, Oracle etc. Most of them are employed by literal billion dollar companies, and another good handful are academics (which are employed by universities).

>Companies making money is obviously a good thing and is reflected in salaries
>Artificial restrictions, such as per-user licensing, however, is jewish as fuck and irrelevant to developers making more money.
do you seriously not see the contradiction? you can throw around debating 101 words and cussing about the platform as much as you want but your very own arguments are leaky af

Contradiction?
There's no problem in making good products and delivering good services and making a decent profit from that, contra artificially inflating your profits by setting arbitrary restrictions.

What kind of American thinking is this, that you must allow companies to completely cuck everyone they see?

Also, if the developer works hard and delivers a better product, he gets a pay rise. If greedy owners decide that they should charge per user, they would keep the developers salary down because he didn't do anything and instead give a pay rise to the sales managers or whoever came up with the idea.

>make money good
>increase profits bad

Attached: 1556104156532.jpg (900x900, 83K)

Where did I say that increasing profits were bad? Try again, without the strawman please. I clearly mentioned two ways of increasing profits, one of them being bad and the other good. Are JIDF in overdrive today or something?

It's just easier and simpler to make money with proprietary software, you don't really need any other argument than that.

>What are the counter-arguments?
Neoliberalism won handily over socialism in the 21st century. The capitalist dystopia being ushered in by the former will be celebrated by the latter.

It's just inconceivable to his American mind that you can have fair, regulatory and ethical capitalism, because he's been brainwashed from birth.

t. knows nothing about life

Because you're arguing for some magical way of "selling the software" without realising that this whole fucking issue of free vs proprietary software and the whole licensing hell arises from the fact that software can be infinitely reproduced. Licenses are required to control copying of software and aren't jewish in any sense.
this is fucking bullshit too and fallacious as fuck since you're applying a single to case to all while also agreeing that corps making money is good since it helps raise dev salaries

t. knows nothing about the world outside the US
Why do you think GDP per capita in the US is so low, and so many people living below the poverty line, compared to most other countries in the west? The other countries clearly enjoy capitalism, but they don't have the same destructive corporatism the US has.

you're proving my point. they show their skill through their own side projects and make a living off proprietary companies

*brushes off years of crude BP oil from skin*

That's better.

Attached: freedo.png (260x280, 23K)

DRM is nice in theory, but in practice it makes things a royal pain for your paying customers while the pirates sail right on past. I have pirated things that I bought, just to get around the headaches of DRM.

>Because you're arguing for some magical way of "selling the software" without realising that this whole fucking issue of free vs proprietary software and the whole licensing hell arises from the fact that software can be infinitely reproduced
I never said anything about selling software at all. How do you think Google makes money? By selling software? Or by selling services and ads?

How do you think Intel makes money? By selling software? Or, you know, by making and selling hardware and giving away software for free?

How do you think Apple makes money? By selling software, or you know, selling laptops, computers and mobile phones.

How extremely narrow minded would you have to be in order to believe that selling proprietary software is the only way to make money as a software developer? You clearly have no idea how the big profits in the industry is made.

yeah, all the other western countries give away intellectual property for free and live in communes smelling flowers.

>side project
Intel's drivers aren't some personal side-project, you stupid shit. The core maintainers of netnext, all being Google employees, such as Dave Miller, Yuchung Chen, Neil Cardwell, Eric Dumazet, are doing it as their fucking full time jobs.

I bet you think patented "slide to unlock" and round corners is super critical intellectual property too.

>There's no problem in making good products and delivering good services and making a decent profit from that, contra artificially inflating your profits by setting arbitrary restrictions.
Also it's true that it's not the only way but you could equally look at Microsoft or Adobe who are making big grands on software. Don't even make me mention that this thread isn't just about the money and how while for example Apple makes most of its fortune on device sales it contributes a lot to creating walled gardens on the software side as well.

Kind of like Adobe is now disabling old versions of its software for which people *paid to own*?

Proprietary is great of you want to be perpetually on your knees servicing the coffers of a fee greedy corps. What a great contrarian life to strive for.

Attached: 1552410197366.jpg (612x428, 97K)

Most of Microsofts revenue these days are coming from Azure and providing services and hosting and compute power, and Adobe has turned jewish as fuck, see the latest subscription outrage or their previous history with spyware in the guise of being necessary DRM methods, which to me indicates that basing your business model solely on the sales and maintenance of software and software alone isn't sustainable in the long run.

>blablabla Apple is a walled garden
This get parroted A LOT on Jow Forums, but it's because Jow Forums has no idea how anything actually works. Not only is Apple one of the biggest contributors to FreeBSD (both in terms of money and development time, not to mention that many FreeBSD maintainers are in fact Apple employees) and to projects like LLVM/clang, but people seem to forget that Darwin-core is ENTIRELY free as in freedom software, which means that not only is most of the userland the same freaking userland as FreeBSD, but I can also develop my own kernel extensions and have access to everything in kernel space.

No, Adobe is fully in their rights here, and you are an anarchistic communist for implying otherwise, and should be executed immediately for being a dirty commie. USA! USA! USA!

>literally patented slide to unlock
>apple is free
you're just a babbling idiot

how is Adobe now disabling old versions of its software for which people *paid to own*?

>what is protecting yourself against patent trolls
If Apple ever tried to sue someone over a patent that they held, I would agree with you. But this is to protect themselves against competitors and other patent trolls.
Do not mistake this as an endorsement of software patents, I think they are absolutely cancer. Just like the notion of proprietary software :^)

Proprietary software good, free software is communism

vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-they-can-get-sued-for-using-old-versions-of-photoshop

Attached: npc-robot.png (634x362, 87K)

who cares what you think, you don't have anything in your head but the shallow liberal propaganda, my advice is to tape over your mouth and remove it when you're 30yo.

>I am pro DRM
Fuck you

You have a manichaean view of the problem. One side isnt right where the other is wrong. It's two sides with conflicting interests. You have corporate execs who want domination of their respective markets so they can raise prices. Open source doesnt allow for that since anyone can just take the source code and make their own version of it with no consequences. Consumers and smaller devs tend to support open source for that reason, whereas execs and large dev teams tend to favor proprietary software a bit more.
>inb4 open source isnt free pedantry

>creative cloud
>paid to own
you're an idiot

>maximum JIDF mode engaged
I'm 33, and I'm not even a "liberal". I just don't think literal kikery should be encouraged.

>pay for software
>"LOL WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME YOU OWN IT JUST BECAUSE YOU PAID FOR IT?!! YOU DESERVE TO GET SUED FOR USING SOFTWARE YOU PAID FOR!!! ADOBE GOOD, USERS EVIL"

Attached: npc2.jpg (275x183, 6K)

piracy has done exponentially more for education of masses and freedom of choice than the whole open source movement.

nobody encourages it moron, it's just the way the things are and no, fairytales are not solution

Free software movement literally spawned out of university and hacker clubs, the same people that started with """""piracy"""""" in the first place. Fucking history revisionists.

you paid for service not for software brainiac. omg i paid vip for Jow Forums therefore I OWN Jow Forums reeee.

>it's just the way the things are
That doesn't mean that it's right, or even sustainable. Protip: when Adobe needs to double down, threaten to sue paying customers for using what they are paying for, installing fucking spyware on your computer in order to have DRM etc, it's a pretty clear indication that the business model isn't viable on its own.

you don't know nothing about history, especially about piracy, you're just bullshiting left and right probably not even 20yet with a statement like that

Imagine if Hiroshima Nagasaki fucking SUED you for continuing to post without entering captcha because you bought a Jow Forums premium pass from moot back in the days. Bootlickers like you would let him do that.

Please enlighten us then
This is going to be good

Attached: this is gold.webm (960x720, 1.3M)

Ask me how I know you think using ad blockers is "literally stealing money"

moot left in 2015 and pass lasts for 1 year, hiro would be right to sue me if i was using it 4 YEARS LATER genius.

no i don't you moron but then again i'm not a web "developer"

>hiro would be right to sue me because of moot's shitty coding that couldn't prevent me from using an expired pass

Oh, yes, you do. You are depriving them of their right to money. Actually, they would be right to sue you.

Excuse me what the fuck

typical teenager reasoning. nobody is obliged to prevent you to do anything, you're bound by contract you agree to when you buy a service, that's how it works in an adult world

You can't sign away your rights, regardless of what a contract says. There's a reason why only US customers are receiving threats of lawsuits from Adobe. Actual laws trumf contracts any day. But of course, Americans keep voting for politicians that keep hollowing out laws due to corporation lobbying.

You'd have to be all forms of submissive to believe that Adobe are in their rights for suing customers for using the product they've actually paid for here. But I'm not surprised that you are, you come off as someone who enjoys a cock shoved far up their ass.