OH from my partner in the other room, who is not in IT: Teams is not a document repository!
-
@cR0w You're right. And, honestly? I shouldn't have misled you. It's not about SharePoint, it's about trust --- and I violated yours.
@novet nailed it
-
@Lando oh no
@cR0w (this is a real one btw)
-
@cR0w (this is a real one btw)
@Lando I believe you because it's so familiar.
-
@novet nailed it
@cR0w why people pay big GenAI companies for this is crazy. i'd spurt bullshit all day for free!!
-
@cR0w why people pay big GenAI companies for this is crazy. i'd spurt bullshit all day for free!!
@novet I understand, but they would have to pay me a lot of money to spew bullshit AND constant pandering and compliments all day.
-
@novet I understand, but they would have to pay me a lot of money to spew bullshit AND constant pandering and compliments all day.
@cR0w oh true, should definitely paywall the incessant compliments. maybe give them a teaser to get them hooked to how smart they are first.
-
@cR0w oh true, should definitely paywall the incessant compliments. maybe give them a teaser to get them hooked to how smart they are first.
@novet Like a 900 number.
-
OH from my partner in the other room, who is not in IT: Teams is not a document repository!
It's not just nerds fighting that shit.
@cR0w well, no. documents you post to teams are stored in sharepoint.
which is one. but it's shit.
-
@cR0w There is Nextcloud, but it's Affero GPL and some people can't handle it.
AGPL is an issue for corporate use, because it limits in-house customisation. I share a document on NextCloud with a partner? Now they’re a user and entitled to the NextCloud code under the terms of the AGPL. That’s fine if I have a completely unmodified instance, but if I have any in-house extensions I also have to share those. Meanwhile, if I have SharePoint plugins, or plugins to something proprietary like Cognidocs, I don’t. So using NextCloud either exposes a company to more legal liability or prevents them from doing things that their existing proprietary things enable.
People keep adopting AGPL to keep corporations out and then complain that business users don’t want to use their favourite software.
-
AGPL is an issue for corporate use, because it limits in-house customisation. I share a document on NextCloud with a partner? Now they’re a user and entitled to the NextCloud code under the terms of the AGPL. That’s fine if I have a completely unmodified instance, but if I have any in-house extensions I also have to share those. Meanwhile, if I have SharePoint plugins, or plugins to something proprietary like Cognidocs, I don’t. So using NextCloud either exposes a company to more legal liability or prevents them from doing things that their existing proprietary things enable.
People keep adopting AGPL to keep corporations out and then complain that business users don’t want to use their favourite software.
@david_chisnall @cR0w Is Bruce Perens' PostOpen.org an answer, though? My issue with Perens' proposal is the "trust me bro" factor.
-
@david_chisnall @cR0w Is Bruce Perens' PostOpen.org an answer, though? My issue with Perens' proposal is the "trust me bro" factor.
I don’t think anything Perens has said for at least 20 years has been relevant to any real problems for the F/OSS ecosystem.
-
@david_chisnall @cR0w I can't speak to that but I believe his intentions are sound. For my part I'm looking at a mixture of MPL-2.0 and proprietary for my to-be-proposed work. But probably also MIT-advertising for stpecpy().
-
@david_chisnall @cR0w I can't speak to that but I believe his intentions are sound. For my part I'm looking at a mixture of MPL-2.0 and proprietary for my to-be-proposed work. But probably also MIT-advertising for stpecpy().
As a potential customer of things in this space (I would love for us to move off M365):
We are happy to pay. Companies are used to paying for things. We want licensing that allows in-house extensions (ideally via well-defined and stable extension APIs). We’d like the option to self-host things and go to multiple providers, but most of the time we just want to pay for someone else to make the problem go away, because for anything that isn’t our core competency we can more easily spare money than time.
A lot of open source SaaS projects are trying licenses that prevent other people competing with the core providers. That’s a deal breaker: we want a second source and one of the main reasons we want to move is that the current system doesn’t have one, which leaves us vulnerable to the whims of the provider. We want moving away from the paid provider to someone else to be easy if there are problems (e.g. if they start aggressively raising prices or bundling things that make compliance hard). But we also don’t want to do a migration (they’re disruptive, annoying, and waste time), so as long as you’re charging something reasonable and giving us good service, we won’t.
For some of these things, we’d ideally like to run two instances. One on the public Internet that we can use for sharing things externally, one reachable only via a VPN for private things. The latter would need to be self hosted, but if you can sell an automation package that means we just point something at your server and have it automatically updated via a pinhole to the Internet then we’ll pay for that too.
Per-user pricing is annoying because onboarding a short-term contractor now comes with more admin overhead. Per-capacity pricing is fine, well overprovision a bit. 2x the cost of the underlying cloud resources is a fairly good rule of thumb for ‘I just click approve without thinking’, more if the value is high.
We want to be able to have people who can be paid to add missing features and do in-house customisation. Happy to pay more if the feature we want is something we keep in house, ideally we’d be able to share the cost of generally useful features with other people who want things. If an upgrade breaks something we depend on, we want a contact that we can talk to who will do a bug fix. We can’t get that from Microsoft or Google, we could from a smaller company.
Anything AGPL is too high legal risk. MPL is probably fine. We’d prefer MIT or Apache because we know what those mean without having to get a lawyer involved if we do any in-house customisation.
-
@cR0w well, no. documents you post to teams are stored in sharepoint.
which is one. but it's shit.
@fishidwardrobe Technically, yes. But practically, no.
-
@Quasit I don't understand why people would use it for more than absolutely necessary.
-
@Taco_lad @fishidwardrobe cursed
-
-
N niels@social.data.coop shared this topic
