this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
397 points (95.8% liked)
Technology
68244 readers
4075 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The IntelliJ products are not exactly "buy once" - if you want updated versions you need to keep paying periodically.
Not that I think that's a bad thing necessarily - it doesn't make sense to expect devs to continue working on something year after year when you're not paying them for it.
They are "buy once" in that their licenses include perpetual fallback. Whenever you stop paying, you retain your licenses perpetually
Not whenever, you need to be paying for a year and then then the latest version from a year ago is what you get the perpetual license for
But you can continue using the older version, yes?
Sure, as long as it works. Software has a tendency to stop working on newer OS:es or become subject to security exploits though.
I'm happy to pay for software, but I want more than just permission, I want long term security that my investment in the tool will last.
If IntelliJ would open source their oldest versions, I would make my boss buy me a copy of the newest version every year.
That sounds good on paper, but the chances that someone else will pick up the ball if they abandon it, even if it's open source, are very slim. If you care about keeping it alive then paying them is a more effective strategy than hoping for random volunteer work by internet strangers.
You, on the other hand, have good chances of being able to learn new tools. So I think the need for this security is exaggerated.
I'm a developer, so my chances are pretty good. But I take your point.
Even if I weren't, there's enough software options out there that I don't have to pick between paying for proprietary software and living with abandonware.
Of course. I used proprietary software for a long time. Having things I relied on get abandoned got old, but it worked.
I just expect more from most of my software, now.