Back in the day, Open Source projects thrived on the enthusiasm of creators who didn't view software development as a means to make money. Instead, they saw it as an opportunity to build a community and create superior products through collaboration.
However, the landscape has shifted. When an Open Source project becomes successful today, creators often transition the original product into a proprietary version with added features and support, available only through paid access. This practice undermines the original Open Source project, and usually end off killing the original project.
> they saw it as an opportunity to build a community
Many small open source projects still operate this way and their community consists a small number of people who have fun hacking on a project together after work.
But as projects grow some of them acquiesce to end-user expectations and slowly turn into "organizations".
They have schedules and regular releases, commit to timely triaging of bug reports, provide forums for end-user support, publish status updates, respond to feature requests, write documentation, have a slick website with a nice logo, form committees and sub-committees to make decisions, adopt codes of conduct to try to deal with the jerks who invariably show up, file the paperwork necessary to deal with big donations, etc -- all the "necessary bureaucracy" that comes with being a large, reputable organization.
At that point you've basically added back all the unfun parts of working and turned it into a second job, so why not get paid?
I stay anonymous, but I built some software that people use for scientific analysis. I give it away; I don't put it on my resume; the only thing I've gotten from it is it makes me a bit happy that maybe I've saved someone else hundreds of hours of work. There's also some subtle numerical properties that take real work to get right.
(Not all, but some) people demand support, features, or bugfixes; and on their schedule. Or docs, or a prettier site, or blah blah blah, and every second of this takes away time from my real job, my now elderly dog, hobbies, etc. Recently there was a wave of it from some library weirdness on m-chip macs, which I don't even own. And they're guaranteed to get very pissy when I tell them I don't care at all (and, in several cases, if they want me to care they can start by shipping me a new mac and I'll think about it). I honestly mostly just delete the emails anymore because reading them makes me wonder why I'm wasting time on a computer.
As I mentioned, sharing makes me happy and feel like I gave a bit back, but all the shit that comes after that is ugh.
I think this a consequence of the open-source marketing strategy of big tech companies and commercialization the parent talked about. When developers use open-source, most of the time maintainers are paid and it’s part of their job, and of the parent company’s strategy.
In this landscape it’s unfortunate but I think one way to avoid this especially if published on GitHub is to be upfront in the README that this is a hobby project with no support, only to be used professionally at your own risks (buried in the license is not enough). Otherwise if projects are presented too similarly to professional ones it’s fair to expect developers to be confused, it’s just unfortunate to what GitHub has turned and that the burden is on hobbyist maintainers to differentiate now but that’s where we are.
And also unfortunate is the practice of resume building by publishing professional looking projects on GitHub that adds to the confusion.
I like the idea of a standardized way of conveying where the project exists on a spectrum of personal hobby to foundation. I'd personally imagine four levels:
Level 0: This code meets (met?) my personal needs. I'm pleased if you find it useful but do not expect a response to suggestions or bug reports.
Level 1: This tool has a solo maintainer. I'll do my best to incorporate suggestions that fit my vision and address bug reports with reproduction steps when I have free time.
Level 2: This project is maintained by a handful of like-minded contributors. Besides suggestions and bug reports, if you're interested in contributing, please join our discord/element/forum/listserv.
Level 3: This project is maintained by an organization. Before submitting a bug report, please read our wiki.
This is a late update but the site and docs make it extremely clear it's a level 0. ala here's a thing that may help you; I no longer use it either personally or professionally so adjust your expectations accordingly.
Deleting inappropriate requests is totally reasonable, but one alternative could be a template letter, if you don't happen to have one already. When I receive inappropriate demands for my time I find it hard to muster the sympathy necessary to write a kind and patient message explaining that their priorities are not my priorities. It's much easier if I have something ready to go.
Much of the money that flows into OSS foundations goes to director salaries and unproductive projects.
Some developers get paid by companies, but they usually come late to the project when most fundamental work has been done already (this depends on the project, Linux for example might be an exception in that sponsorship has started comparatively early).
Most developers who have done fundamental work before the commercialization of OSS get nothing. The beneficiaries of the whole thing are developers who are now 25-30, work for FAANG and take over existing projects while not doing really much.
BTW, the real jerks are often wolves in sheep's clothing who do excessively well in the bureaucratic apparatus.
Back in the day, most users were more technical (TFA is about a regular user using DOS, just as an example) so the ratio of contributors to users was higher
When a FOSS project gets big now, users show up in the issue trackers expecting the kind of support they are accustomed to from companies. They do not have the desire or ability to contribute.
Maintainers then get overwhelmed unless they have some way to support these users. Either they can raise money somehow in order to hire help -- like adding a proprietary version -- or get burned out and complain they didn't get enough donations.
This is just reality. We don't live in RMS's MIT computer lab where he set all the passwords to empty because computers should be free and everyone (every MIT student) is capable of writing software and thus should be able to.
Regular people just want to use the software and they will always outnumber contributors from now on.
I'm the last to defend the drug companies, but at a basic level, they get the right to sell at high prices because of the cost to bring to market which is absolutely enormous.
Once it goes to market the cost of producing the drug is often very low compared to the price but it's in order to encourage companies to invest in future drugs.
In this case, the drug is 30 years old. I’d say any cost to bring to market is well paid now, and even if it isn’t, this is why the public should fund the research via taxes, not locking profits up via corporate entities.
The product is long off patent. The only thing stopping someone from selling it cheaper in the US is the government itself and limited economic returns.
The reason is that labs can decipher the drug contents and produce the drugs at a fraction of the cost. Of course, these companies never paid for the research and cost to bring to market.
So yes US citizens end up carrying the cost, but in practicality, a very big number of life-saving drugs originate in US companies. I am definitely not defending these companies just pointing out the basics.
They are often sold by the same companies that make them in the US as most pattens are international. It is really they are expensive because we can and people will pay it.
On the flip side, I find that GPT4 is constantly getting degraded. It intentionally only returns partial answers even when I direct it specifically not to do so.
My guess is, that they are trying to save on CPU consumption by generating shorter responses.
I think at high traffic times it gets slightly different parameters that make it more likely to do that. I've had the best results during what I think are off-peak hours.
They cant get away with "oh shiz we screwed up", this is the essential part of their business. If you're unable to perform the fundamental service you are offering, it's indefensible. Okta having a security breach is like a pizza shop owner who's unable to make a pizza.
Not sure if it's reasonable to expect perfect security, people are fallible so that position won't make you very happy. We'll all get hacked, question is if we make it easy for them to gather private information which in this case didn't seem to have happened. The fact that it wasn't, probably is due to it being "the essential part of their business".
This is similar to discussing the off-road capabilities of a Range Rover. The extent of off-roading for most Range Rovers is typically just driving onto a front lawn.
Most cybertruck owners will likely show little to no concern about its towing capacity.
The hope with new technology is always that its better than existing tech, possibly in extreme ways (10x better). It would be great if electric vehicles just blew away ICE vehicles traditional metrics, I think that's one of the ways Tesla got its foothold in the first place with the Roadster acceleration numbers.
If the selling point is only environmental, and not price or anything else then the transition will be a harder sell to consumers.
The usual movie: Google pushes its monopoly with shenanigans, they get sued, and if they lose they pay a random fine that is a drop in the ocean.
Nothing changes and shenanigans continue.
I'm no fan of either company but the general concept is that Meta specializes in software not fashion, so partnering with Rayban will allow people to feel fashionable while using Meta's device (and of course allowing meta to follow their every move).
Short version via ChatGPT (for the lazy but curious like myself):
Between 1994 and 1998, AOL (America Online) emerged as a significant player in the digital landscape. Initially established in 1985 as Quantum Computer Services with a product that connected Commodore 64 computers to an online network, it expanded and rebranded under Steve Case's leadership. Case envisioned a simple, user-friendly online platform, and AOL's chat feature became its most notable offering. While AOL was initially a closed system, unlike the open protocols of the wider Internet, its aggressive marketing campaigns successfully lured millions of Americans into its ecosystem. Ted Leonsis, who joined AOL after the acquisition of his company Redgate Communications, envisioned AOL as an all-encompassing digital entertainment hub. However, as the broader Internet gained traction, AOL felt compelled to integrate certain Internet protocols, eventually even providing its users with browsers to access the larger World Wide Web. By 1997, AOL was the gateway to the Internet for nearly half its users. Yet, its aspiration to be a distinct multi-generational platform faded as it became synonymous with the broader web. This evolution culminated in AOL's acquisition of Netscape in 1998, signaling its full immersion into the wider world of the Internet.
Well, it was difficult as dialup was obviously a fading technology. As that faded, they were no longer able to control the entrypoint onto the network and steadily lost significance.
As a long-time software engineer and related positions. When covid started it felt as if the world said "We worked enough we need a collective time off"
Agreed. I will never work a job with a >10 minute commute another day in my life. On top of the time lost, you don’t even get paid for it. It costs you time and money to go to work.
I wonder if workers, at some point, will be able to start demanding compensation for commute to work, when there it is perfectly possible to work from home? E.g. these tech companies that are starting to require employees to return to office.
On the other hand, we don’t get compensated (fully [1]) for the utilities cost from working from home.
[1] Some reimburse things like internet, but that’s about it. We can’t even claim taxes on expenses from WFH unless we’re independent.
Dude really? The cost of working from home is absolutly minimal.
You gain much more than you loss.
You do NOT waste time and money commuting. You can eat healtier food.
You can take break when you really need it.
People who say that they need to get compesation for WFH cant do basic math...
Work from home is literally an employee subsidized office. Who pays for the internet? You do. Who pays for the electicity? You do. Who pays for water? You do. Who pays for the ac during the heat of the day? You do. Who pays for square footage dedicated to a desk? You do. Who fixes networking it related issues? You do. Who is the custodian and building maintainer? Also you.
Companies save money hand over fist by shoveling all the above costs that they previously paid for onto your lap. If you think this is all free then you need to reevaluate what your employer is really asking of you in a work from home situation.
You already have those things. Network rarely like maybe once a year goes down at home, if your company doesn't provide food then you either order and the cost is the same or you can cook and it's cheaper.
You are right, companies save money and you save commute time. It's win/win.
That's if you like working from home which I don't.
That depends. Many people, especially those who live in cities, do not have the square footage in their home for a home office, or even a desk.
When you think about it, having a dedicated office building is likely to be a more efficient use of space than everyone dedicating a portion of their home to office space.
I wouldn't give up WFH, but let's not pretend it doesn't add costs to the employee. Sure, it can also remove costs, but the result isn't always a net positive.
i don’t even know where to begin with this… so many people absolutely do not have an in home office, do not understand networking, don’t cool their homes/turn their heat down when at the office, don’t use home electricity while at work, etc…
Yes, this was my point, but not articulated as well.
I think it would be hard to expect compensation for the expenses when coming to the office, when the savings (for them) by working from home aren’t also passed onto us.
Yes, the commute removal definitely added a new perspective to many people who have been working in offices for many years.
I ended up renting a small office near my house because working and being in the same place without any change felt dismal.
The mental and financial toll of long commutes was (and still is, to a reduced extent) consistently underestimated. Doubly so if that commute is driven, where one must remain focused on driving and deal with associated frustrations the whole time.
I don't mind my 75 minutes x 2 commute, but 55 minutes are spent on a half empty train and the rest on bikes (mostly on bike lanes or empty roads), so I get to eat a snack, use my laptop and do some mild cardio. I've done the same commute a couple of times by car and it was much more stressful.
> School, homework, part-time job, college, study, full-time job... it never ends. For many of us, covid is the first taste of freedom we ever got. It was eye-opening and delivered some serious perspective.
Don't you have vacations? A whole month away from work or school every year should have given people that same perspective.
However, the landscape has shifted. When an Open Source project becomes successful today, creators often transition the original product into a proprietary version with added features and support, available only through paid access. This practice undermines the original Open Source project, and usually end off killing the original project.