HDMI Forum Rejects Open-Source HDMI 2.1 Driver Support Sought By AMD

[ezst036]

Show me one company making more money from open source than MS makes from closed source.

Microsoft does not disclose what it makes from open source vs what it makes from closed source. So your "show me" is unanswerable, directly.

Let's take a moment to remember what the original clarification looked like:

I wasn't talking about the developers, I was talking about the mentality of the people that demand all software be free but they would have a fit if someone demanded they work for free.

There is no conflict. It's imaginary. MS biggest bread winner, the company you have come full circle to complain about, is Azure online cloud services. The basis for Azure is C# which is, yes, open source.

Ultimately, I don't know what your complaint is anymore. Who cares if people have a mentality to demand all software be free if you can easily get paid no matter what path you choose?

Haven't you realized yet that the people who demand all their software for free are your unpaid QA staff?

[sophisticles]

The specific wording was intended to be funny (not in isolation but in reference to the thousands of times the "cute neighborhood kids selling poisoned lemonade" trope has appeared in comics over the years)...

... but the spirit of it is what we commonly call open core, where the core software product is open source but it can be enhanced and extended using proprietary software. IBM and RH have both done a pretty good job of combining open source and closed source products over the years, although I don't remember if they managed to do it at the same time.

FWIW almost every strategy fails if you are willing to fail it simply for "making less money than Microsoft"

I understood that the analogy was meant to be tongue in cheek, but the sentiment behind it is a business practice that some believe in.

Another glaring hole in the business plan, is that you are assuming that customers will come to you for the antidote and not go to a competitor that offers it for less money or is more convenient.

The issue is however that many people in this forum have this ridiculous belief system that either everything is GPL or it's crap.

What you said here:

but the spirit of it is what we commonly call open core, where the core software product is open source but it can be enhanced and extended using proprietary software.

Is something I have advocated for numerous times and have been called all sorts of names for doing so by the netizens of this forum.

Because i have proposed the exact thing that you stated above, namely offering a distro for free but having a closed source, proprietary "killer app" that only works on that said distro, I have been called "toxic", "a danger to open source", "moron", "asshole", "troll"; people have begged Michael to ban me, which he did once.

The same people that demand everything be GPL'd open source, and call IBM, RH, and NVIDIA "evil" are the same ones that have no problem playing closed source proprietary games.

There are times I think these people are just trolling but I have met people like this in real life.

Their demands that everything be GPL is similar to those that demand free education or free health care, they don't work for free but for some reason doctors, nurses, teachers, and programmers are supposed to spend years of their life in college just to work for free.

These people live in la la land.

[sophisticles]

Ultimately, I don't know what your complaint is anymore. Who cares if people have a mentality to demand all software be free if you can easily get paid no matter what path you choose?

How do you get paid?

How do you generate revenue?

Look at Gnome, they have been around for about 30 years, actually more and it barely generates 100k a year.

KDE has been around for about 25 years and they do not hit the 300k mark per year.

XFCE has made 480 dollars year to date.

The only one rolling in cash is the Linux Foundation that was founded by large corporations with deep pockets,

[ezst036]

How do you get paid?

How do you generate revenue?

Without getting too specific, I work at a local corporation with one or two regional ties (slowly growing), working with quite a bit of open source. Revenue is generated with service fees.

It's interesting how deeply you want to discount and pour caca all over service fees as a source of revenue, as if per-item license sales are the only valid way of generating revenue in your view. Yet you brought up Microsoft specifically, when pretty much everybody knows if Microsoft thought they could get away with it they would switch today away from per-item license fees and move Windows directly to a service fee subscription model.

You really need to stop, take a step back, and see how none of this makes any sense. Where software makes the most, absolute most money is exactly where open source is aimed at thriving and returning the absolute most profits of all.

Look at Gnome, they have been around for about 30 years, actually more and it barely generates 100k a year.

KDE has been around for about 25 years and they do not hit the 300k mark per year.

XFCE has made 480 dollars year to date.

The only one rolling in cash is the Linux Foundation that was founded by large corporations with deep pockets,

I think you've selectively chosen convenient targets to make an unrealistic point. Prior to the IBM buy out, Red Hat was a billion dollar company. Not bad for giving it all away for free.

As for the Linux Foundation, you say the phrase "by large corporations with deep pockets" as if that's a bad thing not realizing you're contradicting yourself. Deep pockets? Profits? How are you missing this? How are you missing the connection here?

You still haven't explained your lack of outrage for having an army of unpaid QA staff at your disposal, as all FOSS projects often times do. Care to address that this time around?

[duby229]

Yet games are so expensive - close to $100 most of them - so, someone must have bought the console to play them. I don't think MS and Sony are doing too badly. Yeah, they might have junk but it's being sold.

Sure they're being sold... At a huge loss.... But that's the entire point, get the hardware into peoples hands so that they can buy games for it. The hardware doesn't need to make a profit as long as people actually have the hardware on hand so that they can buy games....

[Panix]

Sure they're being sold... At a huge loss.... But that's the entire point, get the hardware into peoples hands so that they can buy games for it. The hardware doesn't need to make a profit as long as people actually have the hardware on hand so that they can buy games....

Huge loss? What nonsense. It probably doesn't cost much to make one of those things - considering how expensive they are regardless of the platform. Nice try but you bore me, pal.

[duby229]

Huge loss? What nonsense. It probably doesn't cost much to make one of those things - considering how expensive they are regardless of the platform. Nice try but you bore me, pal.

Whatever dude, bye...

[Panix]

Whatever dude, bye...

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/96558/big-3-revenues-compared-playstation-made-30-billion-in-2023-xbox-18/index.html

Good riddance, troll.

[duby229]

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/96558/big-3-revenues-compared-playstation-made-30-billion-in-2023-xbox-18/index.html

Good riddance, troll.

You did actually read the article right? No, obviously...

[Panix]

You did actually read the article right? No, obviously...

Yes, that's why I posted it, moron. There's a bunch of articles about the profits for the console companies - even if there's a slight dip - but, profits are profits - did you read the comments at the end of the article? No, obviously.