I don't know the solution but I do know that we're losing what the internet was suppose to be.

I remember in the early days how we all thought it was insane and unethical to create scarcity in data.

We all knew data could be copied and shared almost limitlessly and so the internet was headed towards this new post information scarcity world were we could all collaborate and share information and knowledge and culture.

It seems like now we're putting up walls everywhere and charging for access to every bit of data we can. I think as an online culture that we lost a lot of that early 00s mentality of what the net would be.

I feel like we dropped that baton and the newer generation is almost pro data scarcity.

Just because software is Free as in libre doesn't mean it's free as in beer. Running those services costs huge amount of money. Running enough instances of lemmy to replace reddit would cost collectively much more than the one optimized centralized service. So I guess that would translate to governments making billions of dollars in tax revenue.

I work in tech. Some would lose, but others would win. We spend more and more every year on services. The software isn't entirely FOSS, but the licensing cost is often trivial compared to the costs to implement and maintain. For instance, we use WordPress for our website. We give thousands every year to our web designers while spending 0 on the software. The big software we use, that we spend hundreds of thousands yearly on, is moving in the same direction. I suspect they will go FOSS in the next decade, and focus on hosting/professional services.

Great, so even on Lemmy 'Shower Thoughts' are just statements.

Depends on what you mean by “tech industry”. If FOSS projects are outside the realm of “tech industry”, then yes. The users and money would just go to FOSS instead of large well known companies, but the money would still go somewhere and development would happen somewhere.

Governments pay huge amounts of money for software licenses, mainly to Microsoft. So it would save them a lot of money too.

The cost is hardly in the software. It’s for the support and setup. Even if governments switch to Linux, they’d need some sort of support contract in place with a vendor.

Well, it won't be supported by governments -- the tax dollars they lose are nothing compared to the communication they no longer control.

That aside, most regular folks want something easy and established before they'll use it. I think that's the main issue to entry of FOSS stuff for people who aren't otherwise engaged in the ecosystem. Lemmy got an unusual leg up from the implosion of reddit.

Open Office etc. have been tried by governments with varying degrees of success. I think Germany is the best known example.

One issue that isn't really about the software is the accountability. If it breaks, or it breaks something else, who's is responsible? Governments can either pay a lot of money to fix it themselves or wait and hope for someone else to do it eventually. With paid software it's a lot easier to confront the tech company because they were already paid for it to work, so the responsibility of it working is very clear. Also using "industry standards" ensures that someone else has he same problem, so there are many others who also want it fixed.

The days where every company had an IT-department is long gone. Today software needs to work without individual customization. Thankfully there are also better standards for everything like documents, file exchanges, APIs etc., so technically open source ought to be able to do it just as well as commercial software. It's just that we also know that software is never really finished or complete. It has to be updated continuously because things keeps evolving. That is more difficult when not using the de facto standard.

Lolol that's absurdly optimistic and completely ignores commercial contributions. No licences hardly means less expensive.

Lolol that's absurdly optimistic and completely ignores commercial contributions. No licences hardly means less expensive.

Lolol that's absurdly optimistic and completely ignores commercial contributions. No licences hardly means less expensive.

Lolol that's absurdly optimistic and completely ignores commercial contributions. No licences hardly means less expensive.