Bryan Lunduke

Also the conversation a few weeks back where free software enthusiasts who developed non-free software at their jobs were talking with him...

http://lunduke.com/?p=2273

> You see, I make software for most of my living. And I talked with Stallman (in email) before the show, about how I would love to get any ideas he has on how a developer, of proprietary software, can move that software to a Free and Open license… while still keeping food on the table for his family. From a practical standpoint.

> This is a topic that has come up time and again. And I really wanted to get Stallman’s thoughts on the matter.

> So, near the beginning of the interview, I ask him about that. How does someone like me make the move to working on only Free Software and still support his family?

> The end result was that he feels that all developers and businesses of proprietary software should fail. And that it is more important for there to not be proprietary software… than it is to be able to feed your children.

> I’m not kidding. I’m not exaggerating. I’m not putting words in his mouth. I even asked him, point blank, to verify his stance.

> He did not say that having Free Software is more important than kids having food to eat. I repeat: He said that it was more important that non-free software be gone… than for you to be able to feed your kids. That’s how evil he thinks non-free software is. Evil enough to justify causing significant harm to your family to do away with a small amount of…

I want to return to something I said because on review I realized it wasn't really clear

"The funny thing is that I've never actually seen any viable business models from the open source community about how to build a business around free software (as in beer and freedom) that wasn't entirely couched in "support services". "

When I said "build a business around free software" I meant as the producers or authors of the software.

The reason I make this distinction is that I think most of your examples involves companies building a viable business around open source software as users of the software. I'm also implying a distinction between authors of software vs. people who modify the source to do something they want -- and yes I realize that's a bit of a stretched distinction w/r to open source. Often times the authors are the same people who use and contribute small bits of modifications to the code.

What I mean is that, say Apache for example, comes from the Apache Foundation. If I make some modification to the source to make it do some particular thing I want, I'm modifying the software in the same way a car enthusiast may modify their Honda to do something they want. (If, what I made is generically useful, I can submit it back to the Apache Foundation and perhaps cross the line to become and "author", but in most cases we're talking about people who mod software in some way).

The last place I worked for does about $10bn a year. It's a technology company with their…

> Maybe this is just inevitable evolution of the IT industry but I've noticed two things that are alarming.

I was at the Southern California Linux Expo[1] earlier this month, and one of the really weird things was how many people from Microsoft were presenting and attending (I wasn't the only one - Bryan Lunduke, ex-MSFT, did a podcast episode about it[2]). I think the trends you point out are from a lot of Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Java, etc people now being forced into the Linux world, because Linux is now the default for new IT projects. Unfortunately they are bringing along their "practices" instead of retraining in good software systems engineering.

[1] https://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale/16x
[2] http://lunduke.com/2018/03/10/microsoft-headlined-a-major-linux-conference/

Bryan Lunduke recently made some good points about sideloading[1,2].

It's difficult to rationalize Apple's stance on this as anything but anti-competitive. They invented a new term they can use in their scare tactics that would obscure their goal of being the only company to profit from software sales on their platform.

Apple loves to market the iPad as the "modern computer", yet the ecosystem is so controlled and locked down that it can barely function as anything other than a media consumption device.

Good on the EU for pushing back on this.

[1]: https://www.lunduke.com/2021/06/apple-sideloading-is-the-devil/

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mXExBK0SnQ

Somewhat tangental, but this is the second post I've seen here recently that plays up the ".. and this happened on my birthday!" angle ( this being the first: http://lunduke.com/?p=2206 ).

I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who's struggling, but seriously, why should a birthday matter in this context? You can debate Apple's app store policy, but should they be expected to factor in stuff like birthdays when they enforce it? It just seems like a cheap pity play that, for me at least, undermines whatever point is being made.

This is mentioned in the release announcement (https://lunduke.com/posts/2020-05-28/):

> For the first week, Linux Sucks 2020 is only available (for free) via LBRY. (After one week it will become available everywhere else as well.) LBRY is a great fit for Linux Sucks – Open source and DRM-Free.

> You can watch Linux Sucks 2020, right now, the following ways:

> - straight from the LBRY.tv website

> - or (even better) you can install the LBRY application to download and play the DRM-Free video