Comment

Comment by turtledragonfly

I liked this article, because (1) it's well-written and detailed, and (2) I somehow disagree with it in my gut, though I'm not sure precisely why. So, it makes me think — another plus.

I suppose the thing that bothers me is the general sense that it is advocating for "non owned" software — let someone else handle the support, etc. Makes sense from a business perspective, of course.

But I suppose the thing I don't like about such "non-owned" software is its tendency to mutate in ways I don't like, outside of my control.

Eg: perhaps a feature I like is removed, with no genuine alternative. Maybe I am a niche user of that feature, so the business is (understandably) focusing on their "core" product, and my pleas to the contrary don't really move the needle.

Basically, while I agree with the point that ownership is more expensive than it seems on the surface, I'd also like recognition that non-ownership is also more expensive than it seems on the surface, just in a different way.

Agreed overall about the various gradations of ownership available today, and it's worth thinking about the pros and cons all the way along the spectrum.

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton