I had the misfortune to yet again interact with the world of FOSS today. This is how it panned out:
1. Heard that something called Rustdesk is a good VNC solution.
2. Installed it on my host and client devices fine. The client is an Android tablet
3. Finger touch input works, but stylus input doesn't work.
4. Search the internet and find the GitHub issue
5. In it the developers at Rustdesk have responded "Fund it if you really need this feature."
6. Cool, I'll put in $18 and hope that they fix this issue. It's a shame that there's no guarantee whatsoever or timeline, but I'll put my money where my mouth is.
7. ERROR! MINIMUM DONATION $20!
8. Give up. Why did I give the sewage world of FOSS another chance?
As a counter example:
The other day I had a bug in a paid software I've been using for years, that cost me less than $100. Mailed the company, and a few hours later the developers sent me a new executable with the bug fixed. The next day they released an update for every user with the bug fixed.
$18? Big roller there lol. How much would you expect to be paid an hour to code?
Is it more than $18? And is the bug fixable in an hour?
Your sense of entitlement is like 98% of the reason FOSS developers burn out. GG champ.
You have completely misunderstood my comment.
If that software has some thousand of users it has made a lot of money. Your report and the fix is in their best interest to stay competetive in the market.
18 dollars for a feature request pales in comparison. Even if it was a 1 line fix it wouldn't be economical work.
That's 18 dollars I was willing to donate without anything in return, so that they maybe perhaps possibly would implement this feature. Which is a lot more money than 100% of FOSS users are willing to contribute.
With paid apps you get exactly the features you pay for, you get customer support, and you get a fair and polite exchange.
It is already a lot for people to swallow to be asked to donate in advance for a feature you need, without any guarantee or even likelihood that it is going to be implemented. But it's a whole different level to put a minimum amount of $20 for such a donation.
I'm just telling my experience as an end-user, and why I avoid FOSS at all costs. Maintainers have only themselves to blame for the situation they've put themselves in.
Wow, I still can't get over your generous nature - $18 to fix an issue for you, you sir, are the veritable milk of human kindness.
Bloody hell, my teenager earns more than that for 1.5 hours of gardening.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, because if you're not, your concept of economic incentives is busted. Completely busted.
But hey, you avoiding FOSS is probably the best outcome for both you and FOSS maintainers, so I do appreciate your decision there.
How much money have you given to FOSS? (Let me guess: 0). But it's good that you are giving them your moral support here online. That's surely worth something.
If your teenager behaves like FOSS developers, then he probably won't get any repeat customers: "Hey man, I might mow your lawn or I might not. Pay me 20 dollars right now and you'll find out, maybe."
I will continue to avoid FOSS. I congratulate the developers and maintainers for all the free labour they provide to make sure the likes of Amazon, Google and Microsoft stay profitable. Their shareholders are surely grateful.
For me, I will continue to purchase high quality software from independent developers.
I have contributed to multiple FOSS projects, so, if we assume my time has value, probably about $20K equivalent at least?
"I care enough to cast $18 of my cold hard earned cash into a black hole for altruistic purposes, but nay shall it be $20, as I am but a humble mortal"
Everybody has their limits of patience. When it comes to charity, you shouldn't annoy donors. It takes a microscopic amount of time for me to close their tab and forget about them. So fuck them.
It's not charity though.
You're paying them in expectation of a return.
Charitable giving is exactly that - giving, with no expectation of return.
I get what you are saying, but I think a more charitable interpretation is warranted.
He's saying he asked for a feature, they asked for money, he offered a little money and they said it wasn't enough so he balked.
We can agree on that much, right?
I think, and this is my assumption, that he wasn't expecting the rustdesk devs to come running and immediately roll out his suggestion for his generous $18.
I think he just wanted to put the suggestion onto the pile for consideration, and then when rebuffed for another $2 decided that if he can't even make a suggestion for $18 then it's not worth $20.
Then he went on to complain that they wouldn't even put his concern on the pile for less than $20 and now he's getting (imo unfairly) dragged for it.
This is my interpretation of the events. I might be wrong but I don't think I am.
There is little expectation of return, the way they present it. Contrast that to actually purchasing software, where they are required by law to deliver what you pay for or give your money back.
Closing the tab is enough, I don't think the "fuck them" is warranted.. fuck them for what? Not accepting less than $20?
Who gives a shit dude