If recent events have proven anything, it's that Open Source software has always been capable.
No, not the individual applications themselves. Of course, if a certain software lacks features or functionality available in a comparable software "competitor", then it's not yet capable.
No, what I mean is - Open Source software as a model, has always been capable.
Open Source has a stigma problem. Not an ability problem. Not even a funding problem. If you assume it can't, simply it won't.
It's often assumed that anything free is inferior, but this goes beyond the realm of mere assumptions of capability.
Take Inkscape for instance. Professionals can and do use it. I use it. Okay, maybe I'm a little biased about my own self here 😉.
But the point stands. Inkscape doesn't lack capability. If you're using it for what it can do (and does very well, I might add), you'll come away satisfied. So will your clients, or company, or whoever depends on you to depend on it to get results.
Yet, I can say from experience, many people simply assume that it just can't be that good (or usable at all), because it's "not Illustrator" or "It's not from Serif", or whatever other excuse they use to paint over the fact that their real problem is the assumption that anything free must also be low quality.
And the worst part of this is... "Based on what evidence?"
Take the situation with Godot - a solid 2D and 3D engine with sturdy tools a vibrant community, and the ability to produce results.
Until the fall of... The united front... where was the well deserved hype? Where was the attention? Where was the awe and wonder that suddenly seems to be dawning on so many freshly waking up to the glory of its existence?
Granted, Godot was gaining some traction before this. After all, you can't keep a good thing down forever.
But it's truly amazing to me how it took people literally being forced to give up their beloved locked-in ecosystem, to suddenly realize that there's been am open pasture available to them the entire time!
To be fair to the bastards, they do put a lot of money into marketing and generating hype. Cultivating a cultural perception is practically a full time job, one that many Free Software contributors don't think too much about.
Though I also object a little bit to your point about funding. We're working our way towards funding models which start with the important point that: Free Software Is Expensive! You DO have to pay for it, but the way you pay for it is not per-copy, per-month
@doctormo I expanded on this a bit further in the thread. I agree - it is expensive! And I would love to see greater funding (I also am aiming to participate and put my actual money where my mouth is).
The challenge I see is that our societal perception is that open source development isn't worth our time and therefore our money, hence, talk of funding what's free seems like an affront to many. Likewise, devs rightfully feel it's unreasonable.
The motivations to contribute to a foss project are many and varied. My existence as a paid programmer is insulting to a couple of our other contributors who would rather everything was done by volunteers only.
Then there is the problem of listening and having clear goals, respecting wider types of skills, diversity is general, stability of the process, the leadership, the community.
Corporate open source exists, and it sucks. We deserve more.
Add comment