608
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
608 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
71447 readers
2262 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man could you imagine what proxmox would be if that project got just a tenth of the money VMware got?
Classic prisoners dilemma. Nobody wants to invest in proxmox because not enough people invest in proxmox.
Honestly I think if Proxmox got VMWare money then they’d become stuffed to the gills with business sharks and probably go the same route eventually.
That is not a Proxmox problem, that is a capitalism problem.
*Humanity problem.
There are some solutions invented, but they require work and revolutionary wars. And the functioning system, I think, will be as close to ancap as to Trotskyism. Won't be clearly "socialist".
No, this is not a humanity problem. This is a capitalism problem. Companies are not beholding to their customers, they are beholden to stock owners. It is no longer in their best interest to make customers happy, it’s in their best interest to provide ROI for their investors. Every software product hits a point of diminishing returns. There are no new amazing features to woo new customers, it is a mature product that only has incremental features. When this happens, you either flip to a subscription model and parasitize your user base, or sell to another vendor, management group, or some other entity who does it after you’ve been paid out. If we had better controls on mergers and buyouts there would be active competition to foster diversity and keep prices down, but when companies buy all their competition and all of the small companies who make products and enhancements for their base, it’s a lose lose situation for the end users. This is my jaded two cents after a quarter century of being in the IT/AEC field in the direct line of this enshittification process from multiple companies across the spectrum.
I don't think you realize how much of an improvement this is over other really existent options.
One can be a serf, or a slave, or a city dweller in a privilege-based society, or a peasant in some despotic kingdom. The list of options is long, none are good.
That's a very eurocentric view. Most of the world outside of Europe and imperial Asia was communist or socialist tribes until Europe went and colonized everything. And they were doing pretty damn good at colonizing.
Remember the reason colonists conquered lands so easily was largely because they out-armed them. The tribes had no need for such advanced weapons until colonists arrived with them.
Name one for this wild statement.
That's another aspect - building something and not getting overrun by those more considerate.