Why does Alphabet open source most of their platforms and software? So that more people will use their software, so that they can pick the best engineers, or better yet use whatever people built for themselves. Then they keep the most advanced models for themselves. Why does Meta open source most of their hardware designs, to undermine the competition and make sure that companies like Erricson never make a profit on their designs. Then they pick the most talented engineers to write propietary software. Sure, it used to be that MS and Ballmer were the antichrist, but now they bought GitHub, this wasn't out of altruism.
But all you morons talk about is 'free as in freedom' like a digital evangelical
FOSS is benificial to users. That's the most important thing.
I don't care about large companies. If you're a company that depends on proprietary software, then BTFO and burn in hell, yeah and that includes muh small and medium companies. Just because they're small, doesn't make them good
>FOSS is benificial to users.
Not as beneficial as innovation, which can only happen with a variety of corporations competing with each other to make the best product possible.
Exactly!!
If companies free their code and designs, there will truly be a FREE market and competition between them.
People will be able to see the strengths and weaknesses of each design and choose the best one
By that logic you would get rid of all patents, I think you need to read a book on economics.
Yes. Patents stop innovation. Imagine if the Chinese patented paper 1000 years ago. Where would be today?
Why would I invent something if I can't patent it?
Good question. I guess the only reason you want to invent something is to have exclusive rights to it?
The problem isn't with patents, it's with ridiculous patent periods.
Every pharma company in the world would go bankrupt if they got rid of patents. Then they would stop developing new drugs to keep your beast of a grandmother alive.
True.
But does that mean patents are good?
Or does it show there's a problem with how pharma companies make money?
Let me go through the procss, a person A has 100million dollars. They want to turn this into 1 billion dollars. They invest time, energy and especially money into developing a lab where people work on making new drugs. If they are lucky they develop a new drug that passes all the safety tests and actually works. The promise of exclusive rights means they can not only get a return on investment but actually make a shit ton of money if the drug works out. People are saved and the buttholes who made the drug get some money in the process. Now take away the patent. Once someone makes the drug, someone else will just copy it and produce it on the cheap, since they didn't have to worry about R and D they can probably produce it cheaper than person A. Why would person A ever make the drug in the first place? So, no one makes the investment in the first place.
There are exceptions to this. People like Jonas Salk, but the vast vast majority of R and D happens in industry and even the research that happens in universities increased after people were allowed to patent their inventions after Bayh–Dole Act which most companies are now copying.
Duh, it's a pretty big reason, probably like 90% of the reason that investors put money into it.
If people want a cure for shit, they can just donate to research. Boom, problem solved and we removed the incentive for pharma companies do develop a new drug that weren't necessary to be made every 20 years when their current patents run out and also stops them from pushing those on doctors and hospitals.
>If people want a cure for shit, they can just donate to research.
They kind of do, they taxes get stolen by the government and then put into research grants.
Problem is government wastes a ton of money on gay shit.
The Jonas salk story is not what you think it is. Pharm companies are granted patents far in excess of what makes sense sometimes and guess what, after they expire, they still fricking make money on it. Then comes insurance and rebates.
Most research I'd taxpayer funded one way or another. Sad but true.
Oh no, would anyone please think of the poor 1.2 trillion dollar per year pharma industry.
>pharma would stop releasing dangerous shit like benzos
fricking
G O O D
r&d doesn't even make up 1% of the budget its mostly marketing and profit that makes medicine cost a lot or the fact that the medical industry can charge 1000% for slapping the word medical in front of a product.
Also add the fact that most medicine research is funded by the government anyway so all pharma does is bullshit.
No, there are some pharma companies for which it is more than 50% of the budget allocation. For smaller ones / startups it is close to 100%
As mentioned they keep the truly large datasets/models/Algos for themselves but they open source as much as possible so that they can benefit from other Black folk doing work for free.
>No, there are some pharma companies for which it is more than 50% of the budget allocation. For smaller ones / startups it is close to 100%
which smaller and lol "startups" are mostly scams as we have seen going nowhere you are really going to defend Patents for those people? What we need that research is solely funded by the state and medicine is produced by companies who can sell it at 20% markup to cover their asses but no patents. Add tariffs on foreign medical products that use the same idea and use it to further fund research and you improved the system.
The research excuse for patents is laughable and just exist to protect the big corporations.
You are fricking insane, and any scientist will tell you that the reason why the US remains the champion of research compared to any other country is the massive amount of investment by private corporations with the promise of exclusive rights. If you have R and D as purely the product of the state you get an overly bureaucratic mess. No greater example than between the USSR and the US in everything from pharmaceuticals to space travel. Every other country is now following the US's lead on this.
It used to be damn near impossible for researchers at universities to patent their inventions. But after the Bayh-Doyle act they could fairly easily and every European, Asian country followed their lead and their was an explosion in research.
silly anon I am scientist and I know my way around patents I have seen a lot of revolutionary work being stopped by patents simply because the parties involved acted greedy and the prof got tired of this nonsense drama. In theory patent sound nice but that only works if you are the sole owner of the patent but a sane university won't approve that and demand a share.
Unless you provide sources I remain adamant medical research is mostly funded by the state one way or another its always tax payers money. Corporations dumb shitload of money on marketing but not on research. Best example being the covid vaccine. What did the state get for that? Nothing. but Pfizer got to set arbitrary prices. The vaccine should have been patent free.
https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/12/e007321
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/15/oxfordastrazeneca-covid-vaccine-research-was-97-publicly-funded
I know my shit when I say slabbing the label "for medical use" is free money.
About 75% of all clinical trials and development is in some way funded by corporations. It's clear you've already made up your mind but in reality everyone around the world has been trying to mimic the US in drug development because they know that commercial profitability is the easiest and fastest way to develop new drugs. Sames goes for any other field, look at how stagnant the USSR became my 1991, smuggling Atari games in to reverse engineer US technology. Everyone on earth from Mozambique to Denmark is trying to privatise their bureacratic research centers in an attempt to spur innovation.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays
>75% of all clinical trials
and now we are moving the goalpost we aren't talking about clinical trials something the private investor is very eager to finance themselves since they can and will manipulate the results to a certain degree. You argued research was funded mostly by private institution which I deny since ground research and clinical trials for a product are two very different things. Naturally if a company wishes to sell a product they need to pay for the clinical trials themselves. In context of a hypothetical patent free system that would of course would have to change.
And no empirical evidence shows privatizing test trials will not result in faster development no matter how many times "economist" push this shit we have seen what the inevitable results are when the private institution can get away with faking their trials. It doesn't have to happen often a minority is enough to deal lots of damage to the public. See again covid vaccines for that.
For me patents are the same shit as paying to read my own papers just another tool created to feed the useless banking system.
"R&D Performers
The business sector continues to be
the largest performer of U.S. R&D. In
2013, domestically performed business
R&D accounted for $322.5 billion, or
71%, of the $456.1 billion national total
(table 1, figure 2). The business sector’s
predominance in the composition of
national R&D performance has long
been the case, with its annual share
ranging between 68% and 74% over the
20-year period 1993–2013"
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15330/nsf15330.pdf
Lol 'member atrazine? And how the company tried to destroy the black biologist who found it was affecting sex ratios in frogs?
Or how hard they pushed SSRI's and trued to stick fingers in their ears about side-effects until it was undeniable and now it has gone from "miracle cure" to "use only in severe illness, along with CBT or something"?
>for smaller companies
youve budged but are still wrong
As a medical doctor frick this shit
Have children. Die with grace.
>developing new drugs
they don't need to when they can use patents to sell the same shit over and over. Don't need to innovate if competition isn't allowed. Most research is done with public funding by universities anyway. Patent shills are braindead bootlickers.
>daddy gubmint should stop people from competing because I was first waah someone think of my profits
>inb4 they won't do stuff without patents
then they will make no money and go bankrupt as opposed to making less money
>competing with each other to make the best product possible.
Myth. They don't. They make the product that willmake them the most mpney, not the same as the best product.
the best product for söyBlack folk maybe
Not really when you consider the vast majority of software run on normie users is propietary, even if it is bootlooged
Even if a google engineer can't use a whole Open Source project, they can still use all the programming techniques and algorithms that an open source project provides
>people will prefer foss than any proprietary shit
The vast majority of schools and workplaces outside of tech use Windows,
Also, that's not the point moron, Meta doesn't need to make money off of antennae or cameras, they make money mining peoples data off of those cameras/antennae, so they make a free design, and that way competing companies like Ericson get fricked.
>Even if a google engineer can't use a whole Open Source project, they can still use all the programming techniques and algorithms that an open source project provides
This is a theoretically sound but purely theoretical benefit that does not occur in practice
You must be joking, let's say google is working on a sorting problem and some moron included a similar sorting problem solution that thankfully thanks to the dumbfrick Stallman and his 'free as in freedom mantra' meant that it's now just sitting there in a github repository. Why wouldn't Google's engineer just pick it up from there?
Google is 100% against using anything that is AGPL. They take that shit serious. They only use products with a cuck license so they can sell it as a service.
um pretty sure they used linux for android
linux is not agpl
Find my gitea
Github is compromised
If there was a foss OS with compatibility with windows binaries and is as easy as windows to use, many people would use it instead of windows.
The problem is that most software is made for windows because it's so dominant in the desktop market
> React OS
Think again
ReactOS isn't even close to being a daily driver OS. It also can't run all windows software. They have to put in a lot of effort to reverse engineer what Microsoft has done.
It's still in alpha after 20 years
Aside from being obsolete it is a pretty impressive project and has enabled WINE to allow you to basically use windows on linux
Read the AGPL and get back to me.
doesn't matter since the richest companies sell services instead of products now
If Ericson's designs are so good, then let them release them so they compete with the big companies designs in the free market.
Of course people will prefer foss than any proprietary shit.
i get the feeling that stallman doesnt even know what he created.
Free shit is advertising. It's not really free, they get more in return.
FOSS for users sucks. Users are turned into beta testers and data, and they get shitty software in return because cheap = crap.
Good software costs money, nobody wants to build something good for free.
And if you see good software that's free, that means they already got something for it, or are getting it some other way.
There's literally nothing free. You're spending something, even if it's just extra time.
You can be a beta tester when you're using proprietary software.
Foss can be sold. There's no requirement for it to be free of charge
Why would people buy something that they can just download off github for free. And why wouldn't the person who bought it, if they get the source code, just distribute it themselves like a bootlegged movie.
The binaries can be sold. GPL doesn't require you to give binaries for free
For example Linux.
Time = money.
The time you spend on setting up Linux could be used to earn money instead. You're actually wasting more money using linux than having something that just works like windows.
i once had a conversation about this at work.
i asked why they wouln't use foss on the servers since its free and lighter to run.
the main reason they wouln't use foss is because of the time spend in configuration and since its mostly comunity maintained, there is ample direct support.
SLES or OpenSUSE and hire a sysadmin. Really not hard or time consuming tbh
Open source software is not free/libre software
That's why Open Source misses the point. Google fears the AGPL like the plague.
better than proprietary shit
Because freetardism is a commie larp for deranged treefrickers and autistic imbeciles. The only thing floss homosexualry incentivizes is for corporations to push undocumented overengineered garbage to sell support for. There's a reason the biggest contributors to shit like linux are companies such as ibm, microcuck and israelitegle.
FOSS is the most cucked thing a company can do
excellent thread
>FOSS is actually very beneficial to large companies
Yes. It allows them to harness the otherwise-useless throngs of ideologically-blinded compsci rubes looking for credits (and the occasional autistic NEET who actually has even a tenth the competence he pretends he does) into working them for not just free, but usually uncredited. It's brilliant when you think about it.
Why don't they make windows opensource?
It's not like it'd make normies stop using windows
For the one trillionth time, there's code in Windows going back to the 1980s, of often-unknown and -untraceable copyright ownership, where it was licensed to them All Rights Reserved. Microsoft can't open source Windows any more than some IQfytard pretending XP is now "open source" because he downloaded NOTREPACKED.
Why don't they open source the code they HAVE the rights to?
Because that would result in something that's not remotely a complete operating system.
ahem... exsqueeze me i have something to say
the focus is on AMAZON (still a part of gayMAN) for my points. their "amazon basic" products are a perfect (starter) example of the exact opposite to what you are talking about
the "amazon basics" products (hereon-out referred to as BASIC products) are designed and sold by amazon, from china, where they are built. they are patented by amazon, and their technology (more ethical than apple!) has to be preserved while the chinese - whom, to be fair, do just make it, and dont just - try to "take it for themselves"
thats all, because ive remembered what this point was about. im glad i didnt go and get my note-pad for that! what i want to say ends with a key-word for you to remember in "recalls" and its not even close to being interesting enough to say
>if i wanted to tell you about it then it would take so long because its so deep and interesting!
as, all it is, is, being able to properly date (and time) and mark which factory it came from, for recalls. and recalls are the main reason for the points in the BASIC products and amazon having to protect them from the chinese in this risky scenario, a product recall
in fact, im not even proof-reading these things! lol!
the take-away from this should be the re-imagining of the idea you have in your head for "chinese trash", when we talk about product recalls. when the product is thrown away, it goes to china. when a product is recalled, its thrown away or made better (in amazons case, made better, the cost fronted, as they have a name to keep)
they must do this (not only for their name but) to protect their patented designs which the chinese do make, to hold them off from making replicas-over-knockoffs... theyve got to frotn this cost, do their own research, re-design, and remake the product to find the problem and make it better without making a whole new one
because they cant have people die while using their product. there are thresholds for recalls based off-of risk, but theyre not exactly a company that could scrap the name and ship out the products in a different packaging to avoid some bad reputation on their name, if anyone gets hurt. the same with people throwing out the broken product, and keeping their product (then) out of landfill
thats the opposite of "open source" - real-life, hardware level "code" in the blueprints for a product, which need to be kept "locked down" like software. this is related to your post, as the chinese ARE getting into programming
another (interesting) related topic to look into, if this is your thing, is the arms race between the sony playstation (their protection) and the pirates that break it. no matter what, they did break it. i think the industry learned from that, and this is the path they chose
R&D is literally like 75% of a budget allowance anon
well i think that the "other hand" is (just as) interesting (if not more). if you cant see that, then youre arrogant and not even very intelligent, so youre points are automatically shit-tier. into the trash it goes! another one down (roger tango)
>pic rel
Cool, so when are they going to release Rift S documentation?
Open source is not inherently anti capitalistic
At the end of the day, users are being benefited. I'm thankful that big companies have started showing interest in ope and source. This will benefit the users
Open source =/= Libre
Open Source means the source code is available to anyone to access, which means that people can commercialise other people's hard work.
idiot FOSStards!
Free is no longer enough. Self hosted is the next step
Gitea>github/gitlab
Pleroma/mastodon/fricksocialmediaaltogether
>Why does Alphabet open source most of their platforms and software?
because its a business model and not a ideology.
why do you think you can be a good programmer and not get hired at google for the big bucks?
they are not altruistically doing this
they arent trying to get more people to use their software.