• moonshadow@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    What I have considered, though, is making parts of it open source, and keeping only the “secret sauce” proprietary. The open source parts would be stuff that could be used to build similar software for other niches of the same target industry, whereas the super specific niche stuff and all the regulation compliance stuff (much of which is just for that one niche anyway - other niches have different regulations) would be proprietary.

    This seems perfectly reasonable and I wish you the best of luck. Just don’t expect anyone to provide the infrastructure for your proprietary secret sauce for free!

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Well, github would provide it for free. Their business model is that just hosting shit is free, but costing them actual server resources means you gotta pay 'em. And that’s a sensible business model IMO, but unfortunately they’re also owned by Microsoft, which I didn’t even like 2 decades ago, let alone now that they’re pushing AI.

      Guess what I’m hoping is for Github alternatives, potentially based on Forgejo, to adopt a similar business model (free storage, paid runners beyond a very limited free tier essentially), without the whole using everyone’s code for AI training part.

      I also have no problem with a small recurring donation. But the ironic part here is that I wouldn’t want to use a forge that’s so small that it NEEDS the donations. I don’t want it to disappear after a year.

      • moonshadow@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        60 minutes ago

        Someone might spin that up, but it feels unlikely. Github was always kinda subsidized as a power play on MS’s part, and now that it’s well established enough they’re squeezing it for ROI. An instance that doesn’t need your donations still needs resources to perpetuate itself from somewhere, I’d personally rather depend on infrastructure that was transparent about that (whether paid or donation based) than be treated as the product

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          37 minutes ago

          Github was always kinda subsidized as a power play on MS’s part

          Github existed for like 10 years pre-microsoft. Though they did get an investment from Shitreessen Fuckwitz after a few years. Before that, they actually earned enough money on their own to keep the lights on.

          An instance that doesn’t need your donations still needs resources to perpetuate itself from somewhere

          I meant more that I’m willing to use an instance after it already has enough recurring donations OR paid users to sustain itself. Because at that point they don’t need to treat you as a product to save their own asses, nor are they likely to go bankrupt. So I meant the ironic part is that I’m willing to pay, but for an instance that’s doing well enough that it doesn’t desperately need my money to keep the lights on.