Yes, but I don't see how that's a benefit of proprietary software. Before bitkeeper there was some Sun version control system that had a very similar model to git (which might've been released with the OpenSolaris thing, I'm not sure). The point is that "you got some free software because of proprietary software" is not relevant. Free software
> Linux itself, along with the GNU toolchain, happened after Multics, Unix, 80386 and MINIX. Well OK, the GNU project was started before 80386, but nevertheless it was started as a clone of Unix. You can see that from its recursive name.
GNU is a free software replacement for UNIX. You could argue "clone" and "replacement" are the same thing, but I'd argue the intention is different.
> Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise.
Except you can't copy proprietary software due to software patents and a miriad of other "protections" that are designed to mistreat users. People make free software alternatives to proprietary software because they want people to have access to technology without losing their freedom.
> Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
The free software movement has always been about freedom. The main advocates of the open source movement have always tried to ignore the freedom aspects (in particular, Eric S. Raymond who is a very unpleasant character). However, many people in the open source movement actually do care about freedom if you explain the free software movement to them. The fact that the "open source movement has won" is very sad because it will raise generations of programmers who will gladly give up their freedom for no reason.
> > if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers
> If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat.
SUSE has offerings in the same space (disclaimer: I work for SUSE).
> Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes.
People do pay for free software (myself included). However, the primary funding model in free software cannot be "for the actual software" because that wouldn't work. You need to have a new business model with free software
> But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
I disagree. Many large free software projects (FFmpeg, VLC, all of GNU, Debian) refer to themselves as "free software". This isn't a typo, it's because they care about software freedom and were started to offer free software alternatives to users like myself. There are many, many more smaller free software projects which do the same. While it is true that some developers don't care about free software and work on free software projects, that's like an author claiming that they don't care about freedom of speech while writing satire about a politician. There's a disconnect in that logic, and we should recognise the innovation that free software is.
