Please just stop. There is more to IT spending than hosting costs. Salaries are often times a huge cost. You clearly don't understand that and are wasting my time.
The market share for cloud is many times more than 5% or whatever you were claiming.
> Twitter and Facebook both have websites that are both easy to deal with on the phone.
I am not saying that you need to have an app to succeed, only that succeeding without one will be difficult and lead to a higher likelihood of failing.
If apps are a waste and don't provide any use to people then why do these companies waste their time and money making an app? Why do users often times use the apps?
>Global IT spend is 4.5T.
> AWS percentage of that spend is infinitesimal.
Literally has nothing to do with anything.
I don't think you understand what I am saying despite repeating myself multiple times.
The percentage of spending going to X doesn't let you figure out the market share of X. Even if it could, which it can't, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I am not even talking about data centers. You brought it up and couldn't even provide the accurate figure for market share. Spending on IT has nothing to do with market share.
>I work at AWS in Professional Services where we are pushed to go after the other 95%.
It wasn't stated in the article that 95% of hosting is self hosted. I would appreciate some article or something that actually makes that claim.
>I watch the ReInvent videos. He is very much talking about growing by going after the other 95%.
I haven't watch those videos, but if it just reiterates the article then it won't prove your point. 5% of costs has nothing to do with market share.
Continuing to say 5% is useless when it almost certainly doesn't mean what you are claiming.
>I know first hand how many large enterprises and state and local government institutions are self hosted
Has nothing to do with the percentage of hosting.
>As far as “needing an app”. Do you really think the same people who will show up by the thousands to watch Trump and go through the trouble of invading the Capital won’t go out of their way to go to a website and post their opinions?
A growing number of people don't even have a computer. They only have a phone. It is difficult to deal with many sites on phones. Not sure how good Parler is, but they are frequently a subpar experience like notifications not even working most of the time.
I'd you want engagement you need an app. Its as simple as that. That is why every social media has its own app instead of directing people to their websites.
>There is a monopoly/duopoly on collocation centers?
I was talking about Apple and Google removing the app from their app stores.
I think they are back now, but it looks like it killed much of its steam.
>According to the former CEO of AWS, only 5% of all IT spend is on any cloud provider. The other 95% self host
This number sounds a bit weird. I assume you are saying cloud costs are only 5% of IT spending which means it includes salaries. If that is the case you can't assume any level of self hosting. Can you provide the source on this or clarify what you are saying?
I just don't think would care about these issues anywhere near the level they would care about right to repair.
None of the issues you brought up are necessaries in the same way right to repair can be. Right to repair can save people thousands of dollars while the examples you provided are more of nice to have sorts of things.
Don't get me wrong. I am very much in favor of free software and I think if people understood it they would like it as well. I just don't think they would really care about it anywhere near the same level as right to repair.
>The game Guacamelee crashes at 30 minutes in to the game for me and quite a lot of other people, but I can't fix it or download an "unofficial patch" (how many games have reverse-engineered unofficial patches btw?).
A lot of games have mods. These games are proprietary and the mods often are as well. Look at a game like Skyrim. There is literally a mod called the Unofficial Patch. It fixes a lot of the issues with the game. I think most people care about mod capabilities not an actual open source game. If all games had mods people would be content.
>I happened to have bought Hyperlight Drifer on GOG.com today; it seems okay, but the controls are horrible to the point of being almost unplayable. Pretty sure someone would have fixed it if they could.
How many people play games that don't have remappable controls? That seems like such a niche issue that it wouldn't impact the average person I was referring to.
>Back in the day KPN (Dutch AT&T) gave everyone a wireless dongle with their internet, but the driver was bugged and after a certain Windows update it would cause BSODs, and I had to sell a lot of new wireless dongles because of that.
I don't think this is really a big issue anymore. More and more people don't even have computers and when they do, they have wifi card built in. Again not appealing to the average person (in the present day).
>How many people and organisations would have preferred running Windows XP/7 instead of more or less forcibly updating to 8/10 because Microsoft no longer maintained it?
While this is probably the best one you brought up, I don't think you would have enough people maintain older versions of something as complex as an OS and this would create a massively insecure situation for users of it. I think this would do a lot to harm the free software movement.
>How many people wished they could get a version of Windows 10 that doesn't forcibly reboot on updates?
I think Microsoft already fixed this? There are also third party software that can fix this without modification to the OS.
Regardless, let's say that was not the case. If it was something desirable I have no doubt that it would have been trivial for Microsoft to implement. This means Microsoft would be choosing not to implement it. Windows being free software would do nothing to get this change implemented as Microsoft would not accept the pull request.
People would have to fork Windows to add this in. Given Window's habit of reverting settings the fork couldn't just change a setting and provide the ISO. This means they would have to continually provide updates. I have no reason to think Microsoft would collaborate with Windows fork maintainers so we would have slower updates assuming the forks actually update regularly.
When the forks inventively take too long to patch there would be security issues resulting in the negative press from security issues.
Linux and associated software are made by open source people for open source people. If Microsoft turned Windows into free software I just don't think they would make it convenient for people forking it since they would still want people to pay for Windows.
I understand these were just random ideas you thought of, but only one seemed like something the average person would actually care about and it could very likely turn into negative press for free software.
I think the fact you had to through out so many different items and still not find things that could appeal to the majority of users is the problem. When it comes to right to repair it is simple. Phones and cars. Large numbers of people have one or both of them and would like to be able to repair them instead of getting a new one.
I fully agree the FSF should get better at communication, but I think the issue is not their failure at communicating well but that the issue just doesn't really impact as many people.
I think right to repair is easier for the average person to understand. You can just go to a repair shop and they can fix your device. Easy to understand. When you have a computer it can just work regardless if you are using free software or not. For the average person they won't see any visible / tangible benefit to free software.
I don't think FSF communication really has that much of an impact on the success. Even if the average person understands the benefit to free software it just doesn't impact them in the same way that right to repair does and that will result in them not really caring about it.
I think RHEL currently uses XFS and Fedora uses ext4 so they are already not using the same file system. Its possible Fedora will switch to btrfs and RHEL will remain on XFS.