Hear! Hear! No, moving your infrastructure to managed services doesn't make sense in all cases. You need to be in the right place in term of complexity and traffic to really benefit from it. It's less common than you'd think due to the marketing pressure.

Very interesting report although I admit I'm a bit skeptical at the strong "apolitical" message in it. This highlights very well a few challenges specific to Europe. We need to see them tackled I think. It's nice to see moves in the public sector but clearly it needs to go further and faster. Same thing regarding the creation of OSPOs in companies.

This is definitely well put, users shouldn't feel entitled. Maintainers do what they can (even if there's a company backing up your favorite FOSS project) and if you use the software for free with no support contract... things will be done when they're done.

An excellent piece about the links between collapse and complexity. Obviously focuses more on socio-economics systems. Still some of it applies to other fields.

Interesting paper, shows a surprisingly large percentage of jobs doable from home. Also shows that the frontier between doable or not seems to be at least partly related to inequalities. If you already have high wages, you got higher chances of having the privilege to work from home.

Totally expected price hike, and it's likely to keep going.

The never ending question of how to monetize open source...

Interesting thought experiment which gives clues on the burnout epidemic we can see in some circles. I don't necessarily agree with all the points in there though.

Definitely contradicts our preconceived ideas regarding labor before the industrial revolution.

This is a bad trend. One needs a properly setup space for remote work. This obviously raises questions of real estate and money. I wonder how far employers would go to support remote working there... Buying a chair might not be enough.

When we're reminded that "software eating up the world" is in fact very material things. More and more things around us are getting electronics and batteries due to this. This should all be treated as a non renewable resource because the raw materials it depends on are getting depleted fast. Tension on nickel could increase as early as 2027.

Interesting take on the Malthusian argument. It's been debated for a while now and was clearly wrong. Still maybe we didn't draw the right lessons from that mistake.

Interestingly it's likely we'll see more of those shortages in the future, probably in cycles and not only for cars. In the end this is mainly because the access to the raw materials to make semiconductors is becoming harder. As more parts of our society make things "smarter" there will be more competition from different industries to get access to those semiconductors.

EN: This is a bit of a less rigorous counterpoint of the paper from Nathan Schneider "the tyranny of openness". I think it's interesting to see that despite a few strawmen it reaches a somewhat similar conclusion: it's not just about licenses, it's also about customs".

FR: Un contrepoint moins rigoureux au papier de Nathan Schneider "the tyranny of openness". Je trouve intéressant de voir que malgré quelques "hommes de paille" il arrive à une conclusion un peu similaire: ce n'est pas simplement a propos des licences, c'est aussi à propos des mœurs.

This is a great paper. Truly mind bending in my opinion. In my case it helped me pinpoint things in the FOSS movement which I felt were there while being unable to clearly explain them. This is a clear enabler and explains why we need to move beyond the "licensing and only licensing" position the FOSS movement is in, it's the only chance to finally encompass ethics and economics which are both very much needed. It's the only chance to converge toward proper commons without the faked meritocracy distortion.

I could go on much longer... but it's not the point here. Go read it!

And if you're still wondering "why not more women in the FOSS movement?" or "why are women mostly in community stewardship roles?", well there are answers for that too.

I'll close with two quotes which I found really important in that paper:

"Ehmke stresses that information ethics and social ethics need not be mutually exclusive but that they should coexist. She frequently celebrates what Open Source has achieved through information freedoms and hopes for more through the addition of social ethics. [...] Yet this evolution means being open in new ways and more closed in others."

""The frame of social provisioning reveals how the unrest in Open Source emerges from a cluster of basic concerns that peer production communities have taught themselves to treat as invisible or inadmissible. It remains to be seen whether Open Source can stretch to incorporate more of its participants’ humanity."