• gsfraley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, I get it, but there’s value in paying for support and updates, and it’s untenable for an organization to do that for free. I’m optimistic for software running under this model, I’d 1000% love to go back to the pay once per major version model, but “pay once forever” software leaves some unanswered questions.

    • sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      First question: the fuck are they actually making? They’re so vague about everything except how to pay.

      • Radium@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Typical DHH bullshit. He likes to be contrarian but he never actually follows through.

        He’s a little bitch and both Ruby on Rails and the world endurance championship would be better off without him.

    • JoeCoT@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right. I have boxes full of software I bought once, and I have the license to use it forever. But it’s for Windows XP or older. I’d need emulators or WINE to run it now, and it’s not really worth it. For some of it I even paid for a “lifetime” of updates, but that stops working out when they stop updating it. I apparently live a lot longer than 90s and 2000s software companies. Just let me pay for major versions again with a guarantee of updates for X years, and price it according to those expectations.

      37Signals is the company that made Basecamp, and they talk about hosting the software yourself, so presumably they are writing web software that would often be SaaS and letting you host it. So it’s great that you’ll be able to get it for one time purchase. But it definitely needs updates, as libraries change versions, new security flaws are uncovered, obviously for bugs, etc. Buying web application software is only as useful as the length of the updates included. Them providing the source is better, but since that’s not open source exactly a community couldn’t really work together to continue updates themselves.

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I apparently live a lot longer than 90s and 2000s software companies.

        In business lingo, that makes you an immortal.

    • words_number@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think there were probably times where software that got shipped actually worked. So you bought it and you could use it, no need for “maintenance”. I generally don’t think that’s the right word since software doesn’t decay on its own, so there’s nothing to “maintain” actively. Apart from compatibility of course, but if that breaks (e.g. with newer OS or hardware), it would make sense to pay for an update if you need it. Makes a lot more sense than those disgusting subscription scams that adobe is pulling off (and every other company seems to follow).

      • mrginger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There were still bugs. You just learned how to deal with them or work around them.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. Per major version. I have SaaS for things such as word that really don’t change much.

      • Whirlybird
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Have or hate? You can buy lifetime licenses for word etc. The subscription gets you much more than just the software.