Is using open source harming software development salaries?

Is using open source harming software development salaries?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OG3Kyk3Xc5A
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

no

Probably, but who cares? They're just useless code monkeys anyway. Ask yourself this, if you had people coming to your house to collect your garbage for free every day, would you really pay the garbage men? Would you feel sorry for the garbage men? No, of course not, you wouldn't pay them and you wouldn't feel sorry for them, because the era of getting paid for collecting garbage is over. They'll have to find a real job.

I fucking hope so, if they can't compete, then they should starve.

Obviously, if you work for free, there's no money to pay the bills and not everyone wants to be like the fat fucking hobo faggot on the front page who eats dirt lodged between his toes.

Voluntarily working for free is not communism. stop equating the two.

That's pretty biased towards the libertarian right there.

Make your own version then.

No he wants someone else to do it for him

>implying everyone is just as right
>b-but muh equality

top left = bottom right

u a commie?

How the hell did you even interpret I was implying that? Kill yourself.

not him but here's mine

Jesus, you took all of them to their extreme instead of what most people on those camps actually think. Most people on the libertarian right are not anarchists.

>We want government to be non-existent and let the corporations become the government
>lol, it's not anarchy bro.

Libertarians don't want the government to be non-existent, there's your problem, go actually investigate popular libertarian views, you clearly aren't informed, go lookup Milton Friedman for example.
My own view is that government should exist, but only to give people back the rights they would have if there were no other people to take them away, for example, do you have the right to a Ferrari? No, because you wouldn't have that right if no other human existed. Do you have the right to be secure and not fear for your life? Yes, because it's the fact that other humans exist that takes your security away, therefore, it's a justified branch of government.

Look up Penn Jillette for example.
youtube.com/watch?v=OG3Kyk3Xc5A

Stop using that strawman.

install degentoo

>We want government to be non-existent and let the corporations become the government

This is retarded. Wanting to reduce the scope of government doesn't mean libertarians want to live in a stateless society, much less would they emphasize economic freedoms over civil ones. Ayn Rand might, but she was an idiot.

The purple quadrant represents more than one variety of libertarian viewpoints.

Why would you call her an idiot? Why can't people just say others are wrong? Why don't you respect that, despite you considering her wrong, that she was a thinker, who questioned things?

your chart is complete bullshit, national socialism was nothing but a name, and it was a right wing philosophy by definition.

Don't confuse the meaning of right in those charts.
Left and right, is the spectrum of economic freedom, if you want to measure nationalism, that would need a third dimension.

You're confusing the idea of "right" as what is associated in some countries as "right wing", which is not what the chart measures.

If they can't compete then they should pick another job.

economics and freedom are far more complicated than left and right, as it could be argued that capitalism is slavery for all but the ruling class and socialism frees everyone up to a point. The simple matter is that nazi germany had corporations and classes and therefore it was not a left wing economy.

Not what I meant to say, just saying that the chart is trying to measure economic freedom from left to right, being more to the left means more control of the markets by the state, more to the right means a more free market. It's not measuring ideas that are commonly associated or practiced by right or left wing parties. It's not measuring nationalism, which I agree with you has nothing to do with it being a left wing economy or a right wing one.

>as it could be argued that capitalism is slavery for all but the ruling class
It could, if you misunderstand the definition of capitalism, which is simply "the voluntary exchange of goods and services", if there being capitalism means someone will get enslaved, that means the person would be worse off then without capitalism, seen that any exchange is voluntary.

an exchange made under duress and threat of starvation is not voluntary.

Why so? Imagine there is only me and you in the world, you made an effort and grew food for yourself, then I become to starve, can I not trade anything with you so I can survive? Is it better that there is no exchange? Or should you just be forced to give it for free?

You are blaming capitalism for the starvation, when it is not it's fault. The world is a physical and chaotic place, and I am not responsible for you as you are not responsible for me, I would be starving if you didn't exist, so you existing and me having the option to trade with you is a bonus, not something that is owed to me.

Exactly. It's like digital piracy. Sure, you got a handful of ultra fags who think they're a hardcore rebel sticking it to the man and spend more time justifying it than actually doing it, but piracy itself is fine.

Hey, poorfag, you disgust me.

>herp derp if you pirate ur a poorfag :^)
Hey consumerist, you disgust me. I just don't like how the corporations are fucking you over hard.

>The world is a physical and chaotic place, and I am not responsible for you as you are not responsible for me
then why call this bunch of humans a "society"? perhaps I should really go to your house, kill you, steal everything you have and tell this tale about the world being chaotic to the police, the judge, etc.

Why? I believe in rights, I believe you have the right not to be killed, though I will not respect any right that requires people who aren't responsible for it to pay.
Just as a side note, I am all for charity, I don't like vacations or cars, so I spend most of my money on computers and charity, that being said, I do think it should be a choice, and I might not like people who don't do charity, I would never forbid them to live or force them.

Though, real fancy response,
>"I believe people aren't each other's slaves"
>"Yeah? Well how about I kill you"

Just to real state my point, you, and everyone else, is taking the right to not be the target of harm from others by existing, therefore you must be taxed to restore that right.
I am not taking any food away from you just by existing, therefore I am not responsible for giving you food.

>Why? I believe in rights
and why, when living this hypothetical non-societal world, should I care what YOU believe? are you autist or something? not even NOW criminals care what you think, they'd care even less if the premise of a society was "lol, I have muh freedom to do whatever I want, and I don't care about you"

Ultimately freesoftware hurts software developer employement by increasing salaries. Because FreeSoftware doesn't take responsibility for the integrity of the data it processes.

When your site apache2 website, or mysql database explodes you blame yourself not the software. While with Microsoft IIS, or MS-SQL you can yell at Microsoft and if you have the right contract/lung capacity might get a discount/credit for future products.

Ultimately freesoftware means companies need to compensate their developers more to take higher ownership for the systems they work on. But since money is a finite resource, they can't employ as many developers.

Well, I think we reached a point of agreement, we do live in a society, I'm not against govt, you're not against govt, but we disagree on the role of government, I believe government should only stop people from harming each other, you believe government should also help people beyond what they would have otherwise.
There are things, I suppose, that you don't think the government should be responsible for, and that should be personal choice, you know where I draw the line, I don't know where you do though.

you test theories by putting them through extremes and checking if they still apply.
my point is: we ARE responsible for one each other, you just can't deny this. it's just convenient for rich people to say "oh, I don't care, and I have my freedom to do so", but the reality is: you are responsible if you have a big share of the resource society has given to you.

>you're not against govt
I am, but there is a reason people thought it is a good idea.

>I believe government should only stop people from harming each other
and this is not the only reason.

>you believe government should also help people beyond what they would have otherwise.
govt DOES help people. perhaps your shitty US govt doesn't help as much as other ones do, though.

>red sector is neutral
>green sector is PEE PEE POO POO

lolberts mad that most small government people would actually be in the center or a little left of it and that no one wants to live in private-court McWorld

you faggots will support the most authoritarian governments possible as long as they call dissenters "communists"

You do know that green is libertarian left, right? It's just someone from the libertarian right attacking the libertarian left.

I have a question for you, imagine you are a religious person and believe it is immoral to use condoms, should you have to be forced to pay for them?
Another question, imagine you are a vegetarian, and believe meat eaters are immoral, should you be forced to pay for meat distribution?

The only way you can avoid these, is by allowing people to make their own morality choices.

First of all, I'm not rich, not even close. I respect your opinion, and don't discard it on the basis of thinking it's just self interest. I am a libertarian for philosophical reasons, used to be a communist before.

>we ARE responsible for one each other
I'm using the word responsible as "the one who is culpable for what happened", meaning, if I did not cause your grievances, I am not your slave to fix them.

>govt DOES help people. perhaps your shitty US govt doesn't help as much as other ones do, though.
Indeed, I did not say otherwise.

Agreed. What's the point of society if we don't help each other survive. Government, unless it's a totalitarian one, is basically ruled by it's people who's responsibility is to ensure everyone has all basic needs covered.

Would you kill anyone who does not think it moral to help other humans, respects that you do, and does not harm anyone else?

that is my point, burgerstan "libertarians" hate all other libertarians because they see the latter as competition

>does not think it's moral to help people
How is that "not moral" when it's almost a definition of morality?

Special snowflakes will voluntarily choose not to partake in society. Problem solves itself.

>Commie dreamworld utopias vs Libertarian dreamworld utopias
Yeah have fun waiting forever for the sheeple to awaken and the revolution to begin.

Or you could just look at what actually seems to lead to reasonable outcomes.

Mixed economy just werkz.

That said I hope SocDems make a decent comeback, as neoliberalism is starting to shit the bed.

mixed economies only work because of imperialism, capitalfag.

Except for the fact that these "utopias" literally cannot exist without being propped up by a global economy that is itself based on the authoritarian status quo of nations where most cheap labor and resources come from. If Africa wasn't run by dictators we likely wouldn't have the resources we need to make cheap electronics, and most of the economy of nations like Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Monaco are based off of holding and managing everyone else's money.

It's not that they're bad, the people that live there shouldn't be ashamed of being mostly born into nice circumstances. It's that they cannot last forever, and the longer we wait to change, the more painful it will be.

If the CIA didn't actively sabotage it, I fail to see how something like free market socialism with computerized logistics would be another Maoist disaster.

So you're saying dictators are evil, but necessary?

For the current system, yes, but not inherently. Though in Yugoslavia it was how the fucking nutty ethnic tensions were kept on a leash, which led to an economic miracle.

I'm a vegetarian, and most people eat meat, making them immoral in my point of view, even if not immoral, I do not want to contribute to it.

The whole market would leave, so as to not be taxed, anyone who wants to buy from the market would leave as well so they didn't need to pay taxes. What would you do then?

>I have a question for you, imagine you are a religious person and believe it is immoral to use condoms, should you have to be forced to pay for them?
people already do. it's called "public healthcare system". even (most) religious people have no problem with this.

>Another question, imagine you are a vegetarian, and believe meat eaters are immoral, should you be forced to pay for meat distribution?
well, some states also distribute food in public schools... and everyone pays taxes

I mean, if you will make questions about morality, at least make them more profound/abstract, and/or think a bit before asking.

>I'm using the word responsible as "the one who is culpable for what happened", meaning, if I did not cause your grievances, I am not your slave to fix them.
oh sure, but we all make mistakes, and living in a society that puts individualism over social progress isn't a good way to help everyone.

>SocDems
SocDems bought the neoliberal discourse, m8. they ARE the ones pushing for neoliberalism (which is kinda ironic). also, I don't know if you noticed, but overall, the world seems to be getting more polarized w.r.t. politics

>people already do. it's called "public healthcare system". even (most) religious people have no problem with this.
Never did I imply it isn't already done.

>well, some states also distribute food in public schools... and everyone pays taxes
What is wrong with you? I didn't ask if it was being done, I was saying how would you feel if you were on the other side? The fact that most religious people don't have a problem with it, doesn't say shit about the ones who do, I was asking if you could imagine you were someone who did think it was wrong, how would you feel?

> isn't a good way to help everyone.
I agree with you, I just don't think I, or anyone is the authority on what constitutes progress, and what is right to do for other people.

>I was saying how would you feel if you were on the other side?
and why do you need MY opinion, if we are talking about the society?

it seems all libtards are really autistic, and can't understand how real life works. ironic, because they pretend to be able to analyze it.

I'm not talking about how it works, jesus, but rather how it should work. This is not just a "libtard" type of conversation, the chances of someone claiming that the way it works is the way it should work are really low, the system isn't perfect in anyone's view.

Just because the centre-left parties sold out in the 80s and 90s doesn't mean that they won't one day find their balls again and break free of the neoliberal parasite.

The centre-right is starting to turn on their globalist neoliberal infection too, it'll be interesting to see if Trump chickens out on his promises in the unlikely event he wins.

But until that day comes pic related.ensures.

>my point of view
I prefer logic, and don't consider morality important for that exact reason (just like religion, everyone can bend social morals easily). It's your choice to eat whatever you want as long as you don't work against the society or impose your views on others, unless they are more logical and socially effective.
Vegetarianism has a wrong point of view to start with. It doesn't matter what we eat, since all life forms are equivalent, humans are animals and animals and plants are equally alive, so separating your food is ridiculous unless it benefits your health. Even if you think it's "immoral" to survive if it means killing non-human life to sustain your own (which is illogical by nature) and even if it did make sense you're still killing plants. If you don't want to kill stuff for food just stick with fruit since it's made to be eaten so it's seeds are spread (fruitarianism). Ultimately, if people cannot afford other sources of food and are putting their lives in danger the worst thing they can do is to still blindly follow any religion or pseudo-religion like vegetarianism instead of following logic or their instincts.

What a derail. Do you care if you're right in that topic? Because from what you displayed, it seems like you're trying very hard not to be. I don't eat animals, not because "they're alive" why would you assume that? I don't eat animals like I don't eat other people, because of the ability to feel pain.
>Even if you think it's "immoral" to survive
I don't think it is immoral to survive, again you're trying to make yourself look dumber than you are, I'm surviving and don't need to eat animals. I am not against eating animals to survive, I just don't want to contribute to eating animals for pleasure.
This has nothing to do with the conversation though.

You prefer logic? Then we should all just stop making decisions, because there is no "logical" goal in life, stop imposing your views as "the logical and objectively superior thing to do".

>It's your choice to eat whatever you want as long as you don't work against the society or impose your views on others
I don't impose my views on others, it's quite the opposite, I want to be left alone, it's others that make me contribute to them eating meat. I am not going to kill you or force you to change your diet, just don't make me pay for it.

...

thanks, comrade

...

So if you remove the nervous system from them prior to killing them you should be okay with eating animals and people :^)

I get paid to write open source software, so no.

>Would you pay the garbage men?
I don't, the government does.
Is your garbage collection service private or what?

Most open source programming is done by paid professionals.

The farther you get from the center, the more of a lunatic you are. Quadrants are just flavors of lunacy.

you don't want to kill stuff for food just stick with fruit since it's made to be eaten so it's seeds are spread (fruitarianism).

Okay but what about bacteria?
Can I defend against infections or should I just let it go?

There are other factors, and removing the nervous system would in itself be terribly painful.
Those factors are not shared with plants though.

Nice reply. There have been studies done to verify what it is you have written. Futurists have already predicted that because of scripting and higher level languages, including HTML and it's flexible variants, programming is going to become less specialised.

Whereas in the past lower level languages like C and assembler were the norm, nowadays it's changed a lot more, with RAD and good IDE's. This even touches onto embedded software, where once it was just too far out of reach for some tech's. Just look at mobile development.

What won't change is specialist software systems, life support, critical defence, air traffic and things along those lines.

Bedroom developers. Yes, some of their software actually has far superior functionality than the commercial variants. Thus, competition benefits the consumer by lower the product prices.

A long known phenomenon.

did any medic or lawyer give you a free consultation?

but as they wear a costume or a lab coat, they seem more entitled to ask you for money and for you to pay them

If they leave, they leave without any of their private property. Economically speaking, not their toothbrush.

Conversation is over, you could be saying the exact same thing to justify communism
>oh, this isn't authoritarian, you can leave anytime
>oh, you're a physical being who requires physical things to survive? tough shit you ain't taking any of it.

butmad centrist with no passion detected

>did any medic or lawyer give you a free consultation?

In my country it has become pretty common for pharmacies to have free consultations.

Yes, it's a licensed doctor and no, you don't have to buy anything beforehand.

This is free market, if your business model is ONLY selling consultations you're gonna lose.

>>oh, you're a physical being who requires physical things to survive? tough shit you ain't taking any of it.

How the fuck does this not apply to "free market" capitalism?

>Conversation is over, you could be saying the exact same thing to justify communism

The Cold War is over, get over it you lardass burger.

Sure thing, kid. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that most open source leaders are raging gommies as well.

Daily reminder that everytime you download free software, you're downloading communism.

OK, microsoft

>haha look guys he works for microsoft point at him and laugh

It's funny how you say that as if working for Microsoft wasn't based as fuck and was actually a bad thing.

you misinterpreted what I said, which is weird, because the tale of how microsoft tried to destroy free software is being told all the time in this board

We make use of open source (Apache licensed) libraries for our Android apps.

yes. even stallman states this, and he doesn't care because " they can just get other jobs "

>mad because I implied your favorite demigod isn't the sensible one.

>unironically using the term "equating"

>>>/tumblr/

That's a false analogy. Garbage man doesn't have to invest years into education, actually he doesn't have to invest anything in his job.

This user gets it.
Also the bottom right is basically social darwinism. Try to be consistent with this worldview and see how far from Hitler it will get you.

Actually, hitler was somewhere in the far up somewhere to the right in the blue square and he is what you would call a social darwinist. If you're green, that would make you not a social darwinist.

It harms competition by putting entry barriers to new commercial developers who could possible deliver sound product somewhere in future. As for established giants, they are usually beyond what amateurs can offer.

He's a tricky one, because he believed in such an extreme freedom, where you even have the right to take freedom from others.
He didn't even exalt Germans per se other than for political reasons (swaying nationalists to his side). For him it was just a struggle between nations and Germans just happened to be his convenient natural allies. Short before his death he even proclaimed Soviets to be the true Übermensch, because he admitted they were able to defeat Germany.

I would doubt that a real or any serious medic works in a pharmacy. and be careful not to mistake a doctor with a medic, as there is a lot of abuse of the title doctor by that profession, when everyone had only a medical degree and did not do any original study in medicine, which a doctor would have.

and yes, the advice business is always grater than the product business. check around yourself: who are the ones gaining more: people digging ditches of people telling you how to solve a problem?

No, poo lords are

No. Most normies don't use any.

If anything is hurting salaries, it's pirating, which practically everyone does.

Piracy does not hurt salaries. That's people voting with their wallets.

Piracy is harmless. People who pirate shit wouldn't spend money on it in the first place. I personally pirate anything I can't get any other way.

I do know some well payed professionals which pirate software for their daily work... this is not fair play as I cannot pirate their work that easily.

If you invested years into learning C you're a fucking retard anyway.