I meant mainly that sensible planning means you build an allowance for a capex budget into what you're charging. This would normally be the case for both models but when you have to cater for the needs of private shareholders' demands for profits, it's all too easy to 'cost save' by just eliminating that capex budget
Cras
joined 1 year ago
Howard completely ignores the profit motive though. Public ownership doesn't have to mean subsidised.
Under public ownership what the customer pays covers operating costs plus long term maintenance. What we've seen is that under private ownership what the customer pays covers operating costs plus profits/dividends, and long term maintenance is ignored until a bailout is called for.
Farage blatantly has income sources that would fall foul of UK banking anti-money laundering and sanctions rules. They absolutely should have the power to not provide banking services to people funded by illegal dark money. More than that, they have anobligation not to
That's all it's meant to be. However, on the upside, it's cheese, chips, and gravy
You say that, but I would politely suggest that your use of 'everyone' is narrow to your personal experience, at a guess with a focus on those who are either IT professionals or enthusiastic amateurs.
90+ of the world don't care in the least. They want the functionality to access and share information and connect with either their friends or a wider audience. They want reliable and simple functionality. Those people don't really care if they're playing in a corporate walled garden.
FOSS projects with user ownership are a brilliant part of the modern tech landscape but don't be deluded into thinking they're a vast global paradigm shift