> Nobody should leave gainful employment to attempt to compete.

That's not what I'm saying. You can thrive with an open source business model. I'm working for such a company.

Falsewoods software founders still believe about free and open source software in 2026

1. That's it's 100% made unpaid, outside business despite the numerous clues that it's not

(note to whom might read this thread: I edited my previous comment to tame it and make it a bit more constructive, piker cited something that doesn't appear anymore in my comment but that I indeed wrote)

▲

piker 21 hours ago | parent [-]

That business model exists and appears here periodically complaining about how unfair Microsoft is. We don't care, we'll meet Microsoft where they are and just offer their customers a more specific solution.

	▲	jraph 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Then make this specific solution open source, and make the laywers pay for support and roadmap decisions / features they require! Make them pay for integrations with Azure AD and struff like this! Make them pay for the binary! The possibilities are endless, it can work! You can aim for better than "where MS is". This could constitute a killer argument to make your solution appealing.