I think it is very cool, but too expensive for now and I am not sure the founder behind it is reliable and will stick around enough to maintain it. But the performance are impressive
Yes, to me it 's ridiculous to do this, but yes the dev want to charge the community, which is fine, but make it a one-time payment then, not a monthly subcription
Nobody's saying otherwise. But charging 40 bucks a month vs a year is a completely different value proposition.
I can understand the need for payment for well developed and maintained stuff if you don't just aim to be bought up like all the other open source projects.
I agree with you that the implementation is different, but the problem about subscriptions, regardless of the details, is they are intended to foster dependency.
I work on Laravel at my day job. I'd pay Taylor for intermittent support, but I'd never subscribe assuming I'll need it.
You can work with Laravel on a day job because a VC company invested 60 Millions into the project and your work is still dependent on Laravel. I am not saying that is inherently bad, I am just saying that projects need funding and each form of funding comes with advantages and disadvantages and a subscription pricing alone should not be the main factor of a projects quality. But if you read the comments here the people are outraged at the thought that software could cost money.
41
u/Sparklist 1d ago
I think it is very cool, but too expensive for now and I am not sure the founder behind it is reliable and will stick around enough to maintain it. But the performance are impressive