open source model benefits everyone because people can check and know there are no spyware/malware which affects people directly (use your software) or by using some service that uses your software like companies getting hacked left and right even the biggest companies get hacked because they are full of idiots who use proprietary code
I am not familiar with the whole profiting thing, but the idea of paying only for compiled binaries sounds reasonable (and accepting donations if they don't) like if someone is on windows, how are they going to compile it? I never seen compiling done on MS Windows, so still profitable? this makes sense to me and if you have money and time think of us who don't like viruses on our computer because that's what proprietary is, virus thank you On Mon, January 29, 2024 3:07 pm, Peter J. Philipp wrote: > Hi, > > > I have written an authoritative DNS server since 2005. This february 16th > it will have the last Open Source release at version 1.8. The Open Source > development was a great prototype (for me), but I feel that asking for > donations is not going to make me a lot of money so I intend to port it to > Microsoft Windows (and perhaps Mac OS) in the next two years. > > > I also intend to keep this part non-open source, and you may be able to buy > that port in a microsoft store. This is just part of a greater plan to > eventually enter the firewall market as a cloud based layer seven firewall. > Many systems already exist doing this, but I'm hoping my approach will > eventually get me a minute market share enough to pay some bills. > > Now to my question(s): > > > 1. Does the LibreSSL port to windows work? If so, great! That will easen > the porting work. > > 2. How hard would it be to port the imsg framework to Windows? I understand > there is descriptor passing involved which windows doesn't know. But I'm > confident that an alternative can be found. Does a windows port to imsg > already exist? > > 3. Just out of the blue, is there Windows efforts for pledge and unveil? I > don't intend to port them but leave them be just like the Linux port that is > already working. > > Please, don't feel annoyed that I'm porting to Windows. It is just an effort > to gain a larger marketshare of people that could use this as a product. > After > nearly 20 years I have finally a chance to make some money. Something I never > had before. Also version 1.8 will always be around, it will never go away. > And in a few years I do intend to release version 1.9 (without windows port), > > > I'm a firm believer that the Open Source model benefits the cream of the crop > (the people with skills on top), but it doesn't benefit everyone. I'm not > a hotshot programmer, I'm mediocre at best. This is why I want to adopt an > "open core" business model. This may be selling out to some. So what. > > > Also the days of closed source are almost finished. People with enough ML/AI > power can devise decompilers that are able to make a fine human > understandable code (in C) of a binary. I have seen screenshots of C > decompilers that label variables var0, var1, var2, var3 etc etc. So > non-coherent. But with a bit of AI the var1, var2, varN... can be rearranged > to something more understandable. This also means that open source will win, > but its significance will not be so obvious anymore. So I give my "closed > source" part a few years before they are decompiled back into source. > Hopefully enough time to make a bit of money. > > > Thank you for your help along the way for the last 19 years! And who knows > you can always fork my open source version and continue development for all. > It > would be nice to see what you're doing with it and even participate but my > priority for the next two years is re-education as a social worker and when I > can to work on this windows port, so that I have more options to make money > in 2026 and beyond (before I reach retirement age in 20 odd years). > > -peter > > > Please reply with CC to me since I'm not on tech@ and misc@ lists for the > time being. > >
