Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   gabmus (gabmus@fosstodon.org)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:12:52 JST gabmus

   I don't understand the negativity targeted towards #matrix and #element

   I guess it has wide enough adoption that assholes are seeping through the cracks?

   Element is a company developing FOSS, selling their product as a service for companies. That is the fairest business model I can think of.

   I also understand that matrix is complex, and has issues, and I am the first to suffer through them, but they're doing progress, and fixing stuff.

   Plus, if you don't like matrix, just don't use it.

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:12:51 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @gabmus@fosstodon.org Matrix is a decent chat protocol. There's nothing wrong with Matrix.
     
     Element I have big issues with however. Their client uses Electron and their they are also providing their proprietary Server Suite. I think that is completely unacceptable.

   • Embed this notice
     gabmus (gabmus@fosstodon.org)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:27:52 JST gabmus

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq

     @SuperDicq the client uses electron for easy compatibility with different OSes. I don't like electron, but that's a sensible choice.

     The existence of the proprietary server suite does not decrement the value of the FOSS solution.

     Also, can you give some examples of the features included in the proprietary server suite? I'd like to know if any of these makes sense outside of a corporate context.

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:27:52 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @gabmus@fosstodon.org I don't like electron, but that's a sensible choice.There are a bunch of issues with Electron that can technically render software nonfree. For example Electron ships with a Chromium binary as a blob, and because Chromium has a permissive non-copyleft license, this is allowed. AFAIK Electron does not provide a way to build this binary from source.
     The existence of the proprietary server suite does not decrement the value of the FOSS solution.Depends on how you look at it. I often hear things like "Synapse sucks" and and "Conduit is still unfinished". If Element spent their time improving the existing server solutions instead of working on their own proprietary probably all of us would've benefited instead of just Element alone as a greedy company.
     Can you give some examples of the features included in the proprietary server suite? I'd like to know if any of these makes sense outside of a corporate context.This does not matter. Just because software includes features that might not look useful to you, or the average home user, does not justify it being proprietary. Users who work inside of a corporate context deserve software freedom too!

   • Embed this notice
     gabmus (gabmus@fosstodon.org)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:46:52 JST gabmus

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq

     @SuperDicq Element is a company. Where they invest their dev time into is dictated by the profits they can get, not what you or anyone else thinks is best. Yet they are still doing tons of open source development.

     Corporate contexts often _require_ certain features to be proprietary, unfortunately, and I asked for examples to challange this idea.

     Electron being shit is mostly a moot point, the element webapp runs on any browser and you can easily self-host it and run it outside of electron.

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:46:52 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @gabmus@fosstodon.org Corporate contexts often require certain features to be proprietaryThat is not true. Why is it required for something to be proprietary? I believe all software should be free and there is no legitimate reason to make something proprietary.
     
     Element can still make the same amount of money if their Server Suite was free software by slightly altering their business model.
     
     I've worked in enterprise settings for a long time.
     
     You know what corporations wants? They want a SLA. That's why they buy the premium packages, just for the SLA.
     
     They do not actually care about you arbitrarily taking features away and putting them behind a paywall, doing this just harms all of your users. You should just make these features free software.
     
     Just offer good SLA terms and people will pay good money, it's true.

     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     gabmus (gabmus@fosstodon.org)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:48:36 JST gabmus

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq

     @SuperDicq A small tangent on the profits part: profits pay rent and developers. Without profit you can't have any development, including open source development

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Oct-2024 18:48:36 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @gabmus@fosstodon.org When I'm arguing that all software should be free as in freedom I am not arguing that all software should be non-profit.
     
     These things have nothing to do with each other.

     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Thursday, 31-Oct-2024 15:16:34 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     > Corporate contexts often _require_ certain features to be proprietary, unfortunately
     
     wherever that happens, it's because of corruption, not any reasonable preference. no one in one's right mind goes about demanding others to deprive one of autonomy and control over oneself. demands for proprietary features thus like follow from feature provider's influence on regulations to favor the provider's business, at the expense of others who become mandated to submit to the provider's control over their own business.