Basically, a corporation owning such an open source project removes almost all positive things associated with “open source”. They’re using it for “look we are good” much more than for “we actually care about open source community”.

The folks who only know JavaScript and refuse to learn more deserve to be blamed for electron’s (and similar) continued existence, and therefore for excessive resource usage.

It slows down the browser though. I switched to sidebery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQNL83fhWJU

That’s 2x2=4 level of stupid.

I found no joke in your comment and I’m disappointed.

Tried some nice tool (tabame) that uses Dart/Flutter and it immediately uses 250 mb of RAM. No graphical content except some icons in the GUI. As I was going to replace task manager which uses 60 mb, I was not happy.

Wish sciter would be more popular.

the apps pictured are resource hogs

I mean I didn’t disagree with that.

who in their right mind needs Soptify, OneNote and all the gaming clients slowing down startup of literally everything?

I guess every user who doesn’t care enough to check the autorun settings as long as it works. Probably most non-IT specialists.

Unironically you’re missing the point. The point being, it’s not a problem for many apps to start because oh how powerful PCs got. The problem is when some apps use so much resources that regardless of how powerful your PC gets, it’s wasteful to have them opened all the time.

Reason for that problem is them using unoptimized frameworks such as Electron and CEF (seriously, check each app on the image).

And main reasons for that are:

• Google posing browser component as a GUI framework.

• Devs not caring (or being lazy) enough to do native coding.

I wish every person would realize the above so we could force developers do their job better.

Well sorry, if I know the company will treat me and my PC as shit for buying their product, I’d rather consider using other party’s services a way to go.

I directly helped with bug reports (that were indeed used to fix stuff) on several products I didn’t own. You can also teach Minecraft’s creator how indirect help of pirates is a shit perspective I guess.

Also no. Bytes can’t be taken, only copied. As I said, physical world rules don’t really work here. You can copy as much as you want without doing any harm, and someone might even thank you later for preserving some work of art that was mistreated or abandoned by its original distributors.

I see no reason why the cost shouldn’t be a function of copies sold, or rather that the maximum of cost and possible revenue shouldn’t be a function of copies sold.

Not sure if you’re thinking of proposing some new system for the industry to go with, that would not be a subject of the same piracy related catchphrases.

Of course this isn’t a guarantee that companies are always good actors but we can’t control that.

We can, in fact, control that with our wallets. To some degree, yes. But it would sound more stupid if someone says “we can’t control companies” and something like “piracy should stop” together.

The cost of piracy may impact either one or both, but the original post is “company bad so piracy OK” so it’s not really a small scale / one-off discussion.

This is what we can’t control though - the revenue split between devs and publishers. As for the “company bad so piracy ok” I don’t think there is anything to discuss. It’s viable and I could use that myself (though I might not even have enough time to care about pirating stuff, I just don’t buy products related to specific parties).

There are some pirates who will pay for a copy when all is said and done, but I would bet a large sum that these people are vastly in the minority. There’s not a good deed potential purchase at the end of probably even 1 in 5 downloads of anything.

And I would say there is even less deed potential in trying to convince pirates into buying stuff instead of downloading it for free. The point is, information spread helps sales of good products (so you want more paid/free end users, not less). Another point is, most pirates will always be pirates (so it’s useless to blame people who wasn’t even going to purchase your product by default). Third point is, digital products are luxury so it’s not a loss of people when they don’t buy your product (they will be just fine without it) - it’s your loss when people are not convinced to give you the money (the amount you ask for) for your product.

companies are predatory, but it doesn’t justify unbridled piracy

So what you’re saying is “yes some companies are providing bad products but it doesn’t mean people are entitled enough to not pay for such products”? Then what would you say as a day 1 purchaser to people who paid 75% less than you to receive the same product? Where is the point when you go from “that’s ok since it was an official discount” to “that’s not okay because they didn’t pay for it (as much as someone else paid)”?

Your mistake is trying to explain everything with physical analogies. It straight up won’t work properly.

but it costs a LOT of money to make the original.

Yes and so what? Should there be a link between those costs and the amount of copies sold? I see regional prices increased by as much as 500% sometimes. For titles that have been around for many years too.

It’s just simple to assume that those initial costs will be recouped eventually, so long as the product is good enough. Regardless of piracy. I think it’s also adequate to assume that people must be okay with paying the asking price for what they get, and that it will not make the business less successful, if the product is good enough. If it’s not good enough then it shouldn’t sell much in the first place, and it may be impossible to recoup costs.

This is like R&D/T&E cost for any manufactured product, so to call it “free” is a little disingenuous.

Fine, so let that small (albeit not free) cost of copying one digital copy slip from the pocket of the company. This is where pirates get it. They then create their own supply chain with their own R&D/T&E/whatever costs that are completely disconnected from the company and therefore shouldn’t be a concern.

the “potential purchase” is horseshit

When pirates who weren’t going to purchase a game try it for free and decide they actually want to support the developer or recommend it to a friend, this is a sale that wouldn’t be possible without piracy. Not exactly horseshit.

If you walk into a department store and pick up a shirt (even if stock is infinite) because you want it but don’t think it’s cheap enough, that’s theft.

Exactly because the stock is infinite no one would ask you to be responsible for what you’ve done. That t-shirt is probably cool and more people would want it when they see it on you. But really it just can’t have infinite stock and a price at the same time.

if you don’t uphold your end, that’s not a transaction.

Why even care what transaction is? In the end, some potential sales convert into real sales and that’s all that matters. Digital products can have demos and trials - there is no need for the nature of distribution to be “transactional”.

“I’m never paying, I want it for free” which jacks the prices for the rest of us

Missing the logical link here. But anyway, those people should be outside of the target audience. Yet still there are ways how they can help generate potential sales. By wearing a t-shirt they got for free from some illegal store, you know.

Digital products don’t cost anything to produce many copies of for sale. That’s why they can have many deep discounts through the year.

“Piracy” word is unfitting actually but it’s overused by distributors. “Ownership” is unfitting too, but it comes to mind by default when we talk about paying. You either receive a product that you can use indefinitely or a service that you can use indefinitely. That’s about it.

Problem though, is that products almost consistently aren’t delivering on quality expectations as of lately. Or they contain some artificial restrictions/defects that impact the product value in end users’ eyes. Or they can randomly stop working at all. The list can go on.

In the end, it’s not that pirates don’t want to pay for stuff. It’s that they are not allowed to pay as little as they deem adequate for the quality of the product they get.

The ultimate reason behind everything is people’s wish to be able to use stuff they paid for. Indefinitely where possible. And because the product is good enough most of the times.

Piracy was never stealing, because potential purchase can’t be stolen since it’s not happened yet, and any pirate using a product without paying for it can be equal to that potential purchase. The new catchphrase is just a convenient way to remind distributors that they need to provide on value and quality and stop blaming someone for their failure to meet their financial goals.

It would have been okay if they just lived their live peacefully and actually cared to improve. But no, “we need more land and more people over the world seeing how we kill civilians”. This is so going to work for sure, yeah.

Steam is using CEF v85 (not Electron but still). Should have gone “please be aware to not visit even slightly shady websites until we update it” but instead went “oh you must like security, so we announce that we will drop Windows 7/8 support in half a year (because CEF Microsoft doesn’t support it anymore) so you could play your games more securely”.

Just Đo it with the bar, yeah.