I see comments on posts such these very often where people complain about opensource products like Linux phones, Linux itself, or pretty much anything else, not being as good as their proprietary, funded, and profits driven alternatives. How are such projects supposed to compete without money and full-time developers? Especially when people are unwilling to donate to them "because they just aren't there yet", how do they expect the projects to quickly get to a point where they are boob friendly and usable?
People will disparage groups that try to make something with barely any funding and time. There are so many negative comments about the PinePhone, Phosh, PostMarketOS, and so on. It's disappointing to have such a community.
As soon as an opensource project asks for funds, integrates a question for funds in their software, uses a restrictive license or something like a business source license, someone will complain about it on social media and blow up the maintainers' repository and socials. Why are we so averse to opensource contributors earning a living writing opensource?
If people don't want to fund opensource (or "source available") until "it's ready" and resist any attempt to make money from it, how it the model supposed to succeed in being an alternative for the majority?
Sorry for the rant, but why can't we as a community be more active in supporting our opensource contributors instead just waiting for the apples to fall into our and their laps?
I don't care about your fantasy of utopia, I need a working thing.
That doesn't mean I'm hating on anything. Specifically the pine phone's mistake was that they branded as "early adopter" thing too hard. If it says "extensive linux experience required", that's not me and I'm not going to sink 200-400$ into a thing that "likely" won't work, because I don't have the prerequisite experience.
It's not my idea to make "open source business" work, the people who are offering that sort of stuff believe in it, and they have to make it work.
Me not believing in that fantasy and calling a "not fit for purpose thing" not fit for purpose, doesn't make me a dirty traitor 'to the community'.
Same for "struggling artists" btw. I see the same pattern in that space. If art doesn't work for you, do something else.
"I need [something that costs nothing] to compete with [something backed by seas on monies]"
"P.S I'm not entitled"
If opensource doesn't fit your needs, continue using the privacy invasive products you buy that fund the bombs dropped on innocent children and the 1984 world its founders aim to have.