Your local pub might be trying to offer an alternative to local people staying on their homes watching tv instead. Linux and peertube are trying to offer an alternative to something of a much bigger scale, and most likely with more pressing ethical concerns (they often want to drive people away from the current mainstream option for ethical reasons). Not everyone might share that view, but they are definitely different situations. Not saying you don't have a point, but we can't ignore the differences in context.

> Linux and peertube are trying to offer an alternative to something of a much bigger scale, and most likely with more pressing ethical concerns

True.

But my point is that you could call both "a success" the moment that one singular person uses it as alternative. For that person it is a success!

With Peertube you need some network-effect, because one single person uploading and then watching those videos, can't be called "a success". But if a tiny niche, say a small group of specialist beekeepers, uses it to share instructional videos and no-one else in the entire world uses it, it can still be called "a success". Because for them it offers a solution.

I used to think differently, but I am starting to agree. Part of the issues with current generation of software is that it is effectively intended for masses, who barely understand what is happening under the hood or what is possible resulting in software that looks pretty, has severely limited options and constantly calls home for 'diagnostic' purposes.

That said, commercially, it is hard to argue with adoption as a metric. Problem is, focusing on that metric results in the same bs as in the real world: consumer ( crap tier ) and business ( good tier that tends to have good options if you are willing to spend money ).

Cost of physical distance enables niches that can be served by your local pub. If we could teleport (well, and cohabit the exact same space and tune out conversations of others at will so crowdiness is not an issue) they would have a much much harder time selling something unique. Scale aids in bringing people in, because it becomes the default choice.

You contradict, and invalidate yourself, in your own argument.

> they (the local pub) would have a much harder time selling something unique

> Scale ...becomes the default choice

Scale and monopoly removes choice and uniqueness.

There are people that love Starbucks, there are also people that love their local coffee shop.

I don’t those two thing are contradictory, it’s just that you are assuming you don’t get uniqueness inside a monopolistic platform, which is only partially true. The platform is fixed, but you get uniqueness inside the platform, with the content and contacts you follow. Facebook, reddit, etc. are not the same experience for all users. Comparing a network, where each vantage point is unique with Starbucks, which has maybe 50 products, is not an apt analogy.

I tend to avoid larger pubs because the quality of experience in smaller ones tends to be better.

Quantity has a quality of its own, and it's not always a good thing.

Aren't local pubs in the UK and certain other countries now mainly owned by corporate chains, not independent? In that case, there is definitely a concern with growth, though it might not be readily visible to patrons.