> Humans will never want to pay for it later. It's judged worthless.
The latter sentence absolutely does not follow from the first. To illustrate with an example: Is Linux (the kernel, or any GNU/Linux distribution) worthless?
Plus, we should also remember that most people who use non-gratis software, don't pay for it; they just copy it. The most common examples are probably Microsoft Windows and Office.
Linux powers just about every major datacenter in there world. Every ML model was trained on Linux. However if you tried to make a company as powerful and successful as Microsoft you would fail.
Red Hat is the only company that has really made a living off of Linux. Even then, their contracts are orders of magnitudes less than the exact same customers will be paying Microsoft.
Linux is successful and remarkable and every company sees the value in having it around. So there's a shared mutual need. However, that doesn't mean that anyone can make it into more than barely scraping by as a going business.
When MS rolls up, they say we are charging for your usage of the MS database, Office, Outlook, Microsoft Windows 11, and the security promises. They are explicit that developing with and on Microsoft allows you access to the ecosystem. So the total bill is high, but part of that bill is a gateway into everyone else using Office, Outlook, Excel, Visual Studio, or SharePoint. The world runs on Excel and MS enterprise sales know that. They are negotiating a contract for one-of-a-kind software and access to the world of MS.
Redhat rolls up saying we want to charge you. They don't get to say that if you don't pay, the company will lose access to the software or the ecosystem. They don't get to say they are gatekeepers to other Linux users. Redhat can't claim to be giving the database or the development environment; everyone thinks they are free. If you stop paying Redhat, you probably can find an almost package for package compatible alternative in a rolling release (source: watched that happen multiple times CentOS, et al). So instead Redhat sells a contract for service, support, and indemnity. Those are great products and Red Hat will continue for a long time. They will just have very different staying power when contracts are renewed. They will have very different revenue growth.
It's not how I want it to be, just how I see it.
Source: Worked at MS and have friends who are former Redhat.
Unfortunate other fact is because RedHat is a bigger brand, its developers hold undue sway in the community and have a tendency to offload work onto others, while also resisting suggestions and particular contributions.
Happens every time they mess with a critical system and change a standard.
RedHat can be said to have foisted GNOME and systemd upon us. They don't have control, but their sway has been enough to put us in this pair of holes and we're far from getting out of them.
The latter sentence absolutely does not follow from the first. To illustrate with an example: Is Linux (the kernel, or any GNU/Linux distribution) worthless?
Plus, we should also remember that most people who use non-gratis software, don't pay for it; they just copy it. The most common examples are probably Microsoft Windows and Office.