Folks, let me share some random observations with you, because I can't wrap my mind around those.
-
People have Zoom, Teams, Slack, Discord, Messenger, Telegram, and Viber, all happily installed on their phones at the same time. When you then invite them to Matrix they are like "Is this necessary? Why install yet another one of those?"
-
People who use Chrome by default without ad blockers, and you just hint there is a massive intelligence and surveillance operation are quick to respond that "I am getting this services for free, so it is fine to give something back" [^1].
-
People thinking that OSS is not secure enough for their devices. Surprise surprise, it is the exact same people who fall for obvious scams and their devices are ad-ridden, bloated horrors that have not been updated in a million years, but they think that Libre Office will break their computer and lose their emails.
-
People thinking that privacy and anonymity enthusiasts are shady freaks who want to go live in the woods and possibly terrorists. There is a slightly insane take here that we are against technology because we refuse to "just" install an app to make our lives easier[^2].
So they do not complain about being exploited and disrespected, while ripped off and offered crap services, as long it is a capitalist corporation shaking them down with vendor lock-in and network effects. They are grateful even. But just the idea of installing a single free/libre OSS app or extension to protect their privacy is a red flag and pushes their buttons big time, even for just suggesting it.
So, what are your own examples of anti-OSS stupidity, and how do you explain its prevalence in society?
[^1]: It is how quick they are in responding that way, which makes me think that the idea is already crystalized in their minds, by some "anti-OSS" discourse.
[^2]: But just installing a Matrix client is a big deal.
From a business standpoint I've noticed these two mindsets prevail:
With paid SaaS, there's always somebody to blame for missing features or outages. From my POV either way the IT department is getting blamed if a system goes down, and the overconfidence in the vendor to fix all issues timely is not always realistic.
Business leaders have conditioned themselves to being sold something. With open source they still expect a CEO or some figurehead to give a presentation on how the free tool will benefit the company, even though it doesn't make sense when there's no incentive to sell.
Great point.
I assume the cost of transition is sth that should be justified. Even learning to use the software is a kind of cost structure in itself. So, they need to understand why it is worth it.
It tracks. But there are possibly responses to that, like open source business models that are based on long term support or an enterprise subscription.