>>1031605
The software I produce is open source. Regardless, if other people use it maliciously or gain profit from it themselves, I don't care. That was their choice to make and their own backlash to deal with.
>>1031606
I think we can all empathize with this. Do we not all want to live in utopia, leeching off the fruits of our ancestors? Someone must build it.
The more people that become wise to this, the sooner we get there. The less, the longer.
Regardless of if I see worldwide perfection in my lifetime, I will at least be able to admire the fruits of my own labor. And the next generation will likely have to toil less in their lifetime than I did myself.
>>1031629
>get lucky
Only lucky in so far that what I desire is not a minority opinion. The majority of the market thinks the products I work on are worth making/existing, thus it gets funds to be made. There's not much luck behind it. If something is worth making, making it will gain you funds, either on a corporate level or on a personal level. This gets more and more true every day with things like Patreon providing truer and truer capitalist/merit based economical exchanges.
If you think the world needs X, and you think you can produce it somehow, if only you had the funding, you can make this happen easily so long as a large enough people agree with you.
This only gets truer every day.
You can use your free software to register for free crowdfunding services, on a public service terminal at the library while drinking your food stamp coffee. Use free tools to create, video, graphic, and text presentations of your concepts and project. Host these presentations on various free services and networks that have interplanetary fucking reach all searchable in milliseconds.
There is no excuse, and there is no luck. When it comes to software, what are the barriers of entry into the market? What are the prerequisites?
The only things it can ever boil down to is personal inadequacies.
>I don't want to devote the time
>I'm not confident in my idea
>I lack ingenuity to propose something useful to more than myself
Because of people before you, the knowledge, tools, services, platforms, reach, etc. etc. are all available, at little to no cost. This only gets better as time goes on and more people put in time working on this effort.
I don't think there was a single dollar spent in my entire life that was required to get me my current profession nor to sustain it. I would have had a computer and internet service anyway, all the software I use is free, all the education came from free public services. All the platforms I use are free. Even if I had no house, no internet, no computer, the public services of almost any modern country provide these for dregs willing to put in an inkling of effort, and you should be able to become self sustaining eventually.
Effort and ingenuity are required, not luck.
>>1031755
What is?
As mentioned above (in this post), it's very capitalistic. The products with the most merit win, and the people willing to produce them get paid to do so, one way or another. It's only the useless dribble that flounders.
>why didn't my social network start up succeed?
>why didn't my employees want to build another social network instead of playing in our mandated ball pit?
>why didn't we meet our promises when we hired people without skill
Because nobody needs it and if nobody needs it how are people going to be motivated to work on it and make it a good product/service?
As for the cases where things are valuable but don't have the people capable of producing it, it's obvious why that fails.
Software is an anomaly anyway in regards to capitalism. It's basically magic.
>behold, it has taken me 30 years to produce 1 copy of this work, it takes nanoseconds to reproduce it and distribute it worldwide for a fraction of a cent. So long as you provide it with equally cheap fuel it will also work indefinitely, autonomously, and without maintenance
It's only fair to view software development as a service. Not software itself as a product.