Got this pamphlet for a 3d printer and they’re boasting “proprietary software!” on the flyer like it’s a pro and not a con
Proprietary software! (we literally depend on 923 open source projects and had an intern cook us the software in 2 weeks, we also didn’t pay him anything)
Yes I think some people would see it as a plus, but more as “we have developed our own software, not recycled a Chinese product” rather than “it’s not open source”
Also possibly because people think of open source software as inherently unstable.
Realistically, this looks like it was made by someone with the barest grasp of the concept, who just put random words on paper.
Marketing can turn any sin into a selling point, it’s why it should be outlawed as propaganda
I’m OK with this as long as there is a way to “root”.
Think Android->custom ROMs, or Apple->Linux.
If there is no way to change firmware, and/or easily mod hardware, no thanks.
I don’t think that it’s as common today, and it’s definitely not common in the open-source-oriented software world that I tend to inhabit, but I do remember seeing the phrase “proprietary technology” used in a positive sense on various products in the past. Maybe 1990s or so. The idea is, I suppose, that if the technology is proprietary, this is the only product where you can get it, and the implication is that it’s better.
i still see it depressingly often, and people just eat that shit up
the public has been taught that “proprietary” means “super special secret sauce developed by us at great expense to be THE BEST”
Proprietary software, but I see KlipperScreen
Just like most marketing selling points, it was a lie too.
800x800x 200??? That’s the weirdest damn dimensions
I wouldn’t be surprised if these were laser wood cutters or something similar that have been converted after not selling. It is very strange to only have 200mm height on a purpose built 3d printer.
I would unironically kill for a printer with very large but short dimensions like that
99% of the time when I’m limited by my printer’s footprint, it’s in bed area not total volume.
you could try splitting larger models and joining them - i’ve had good results with dovetail joints in prusaslicer for wider prints that exceed my build volume, works suprisingly well for functional parts.
I already do that, semi-frequently, but it can be a pain to get right for parts that require really accurate geometric stability (e.g I’ve been printing some engine components out of PA6-CF these days, had to redesign a few to fit on the build plate).
Proprietary “can” mean better support. But that’s asterisk heavy. Often that comes down to commercial hardware putting up road blocks to competitors. Or the open source solution being the product of a single developer in their spare time.
Proprietary often means “support, as long as we have to, then fuck you”.
I learned the hard way, by selling proprietary products from a corpo that promised support. Would unironically be better off manufacturing them myself.
Oh absolutely. You’re preaching to the choir here. Part of the reason I have a lot of hope around riscv. The processor designs themselves aren’t necessarily open source. But with the ISA being open and open source the first to embrace. It “could” foster a new much less proprietary ecosystem.
It’s not because the dev is on their own that others can’t offer separate support.
One can acquire experience anyway offer to review the code of the solution upon noticing an error at a client that can’t be fixed with some google-fu.
Not really. The software being proprietary turns support into a monopoly.
The support can still be better, but it will be despite the software being proprietary, not because of it.
(And by the way, single developers on their spare time create proprietary software too.)
You aren’t disagreeing with anything I said. It’s all very asterisk-y. And if my personal preference/position is unclear. I run non proprietary *nix systems at a 7:1 ratio to proprietary. Precisely because of the better support. Come October that ratio is going to be getting even more lopsided.
the average consumer hates anything open source or not owned by corporations. they hate free stuff and would much rather pay for the opportunity for corporations to harvest their data and control their lives. this is possibly due to very successful psyops campaigns to induce trust in corporations, distrust in non-corporate produced software and services, and the idea that open-source stuff is just for geniuses or hackers and the layperson will never understand how to use it at best, or it will destroy your computer at worst. it’s something I’m beginning to learn.
Don’t forget that managers think the same thing – if it’s free then it is somehow an inferior product but if you pay for something then that automatically makes it better. This applies forward as well… the more they pay for something, the “better” it must be.
For example… Cybertruck.
From my perspective, open-source products are greatly superior because you have the entire community of users and engineers working on a known issue, rather than a few paid engineers who may not even use the product. Even more importantly, the community will solve problems that a corporation has decided aren’t worth the effort or are “obsolete”.
