>wants all software to be free and open-source
>complains that there's no good IT job
If more software was proprietary, we'd be rolling in developer jobs right now. This is a fact.
can anyone explain the economics of the open-source movement? free labour, putting yourself out of work.
>>55243533
Why do you need someone to explain it when you already did?
>>55243163
>Redhat is a fucking awful job!
>>55243533
I could see a viable system of patronage ala patreon. It only takes a few thousand to like your product, kick $10 a month towards you to make a successful career.
>>55243576
This is the only real model. Programming paid via subscription.
>>55243584
Provided it isn't a forced subscription (like Microsoft is trying to shove down my throat), I'd be okay with that.
we are rolling in dev jobs already tho
Daily reminder that if you're good at something never do it for free.
Linux is fun and all but if you have 1337 programming skills go sell your services or make a program/app worth a shit to sell.
>>55243576
"Just let other people pay for the software while I get if for free"
It's not different from how it works currently. The only thing different with the latter is that it eases your brain about pirating.
>>55243602
>I'm okay with having the choice to receive a paid product for free
who the fuck isn't.
>>55243163
Except we are fucking rolling in developer jobs if you aren't a retard.
if you could patent scientific discoveries there'd be way more jobs
Whoops you can't use that heliocentric model there bro, gotta either pay the Copernicus estate or GalileoCorp for a license or clean-room make it yourself from scratch. Oh shit are you using pirated calculus right now?
actually nowadays you can patent scientific discoveries way to go OP you did this to us. Standing on the shoulders of extremely expensive licensed giants, as it were.
Feels good to have a job in embedded Linux.
>getting paid to write and submit patches
You pay for services rather than products. I.e., pay for people to support your software. Open source doesn't magically mean people will work for free.
>>55243533
>get paid to write programs
>don't give a shit what else happens or who uses your programs or who does what with the source
It's as if you all only think of programs that are packaged like products when in reality the bulk of programming work is for services and independent businesses doing internal software
>>55244092
I envy you. My job isn't particularly Linux-focused but I have the most fun when I'm trying to figure out some Linux shit. It's literally a video game. If that could be my job, I'd be happy.
>>55244143
Embedded Linux is probably the easiest shit to get into if you want to do kernel dev. All you have to do is convince someone you can do it by showing them you can work and you can hack the kernel and they'll pay you. If you've already had a job or two and a forked kernel repo in your github, you'll get a job no problem.
There are very few okay embedded devs. Even fewer good ones. Pays well, too.
>>55244020
See if it wasn't shoved down people's throats, people might be a little more open about giving money, because unlike you, not everyone is a greedy fuck
>>55244002
I don't pirate, and develop software. Personally I'm for the idea of a patron-based economy.
>>55243163
Free as in freedom, not beer. Free software can be sold and rms himself says that you might as well charge for something you distribute. We've moved to a service based economy anyway; just look at redhat
>>55243621
Good to see like minded people here.
>>55243533
1. Free knowlege
2. More innovation
3. More opportunities
By restricting the freedom to share, innovation is stiffled, companies have monopolies, and developers and users alike suffer.
>if leftists stopped importing third worlders, we'd be rolling in developer jobs right now'
fixed that for you
>>55243621
>Daily reminder that if you're good at something never do it for free.
how on earth would I get better at it though? how would I practice?
