Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 117 posts

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#21

Post by scrollaway »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #11
Anchor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if VCs do not see a way to make a decent return on their investments on common infrastructure (as seems to be the case also with physical infrastructure), we should consider funding that work through taxes. The article refers to Mark Suster's comment that "[OSS projects] directly caused tech’s rapid rise". This work benefits many, and we rely on it to exist - and function (Heartbleed), so there are similarities…

> How about a new civil servant job: OSS maintainer. https://18f.gsa.gov/ EDIT: > We are transforming government from the inside out, creating cultural change by working with teams inside agencies who want to create great services for the public.

How wonderful is that site...

https://18f.gsa.gov/2016/01/12/hacking-inclusion-by-customiz...

I can't tell what's more wrong here. The passive-aggressiveness of writing a bot to correct people, or the fact it's going on on a .gov.

(And before you scream at me for being a heartless sexist bastard or some such, this would be just as messed up if it were a bot that corrects your->you're. Passive aggressiveness certainly does not improve workplace health.)

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#22

Post by mwpmaybe »

From the article:

"But hardly any founder, VC, or big tech employee was aware of the issue, even when they used or benefitted directly from these projects."

I just can't wrap my mind around this. As a former "big tech employee" and current founder I am constantly cognizant of the free software that shapes my working day and every solution I implement. From kernels and userspace tools to compilers and interpreters to IDEs and VCS to frameworks and protocols to online services and communication tools... it's nuts how much stuff we all use. I'm living on ramen now but one of my personal goals is to be successful enough to give back in a substantial way to these developers and projects that have been so instrumental to everything we're doing.

Do people really take all this for granted? Are we as a community not doing a good enough job of teaching/explaining it?

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#23

Post by toomuchtodo »

scrollaway wrote: post #21
toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about a new civil servant job: OSS maintainer. https://18f.gsa.gov/ EDIT: > We are transforming government from the inside out, creating cultural change by working with teams inside agencies who want to create great services for the public.

How wonderful is that site... https://18f.gsa.gov/2016/01/12/hacking-inclusion-by-customiz... I can't tell what's more wrong here. The passive-aggressiveness of writing a bot to correct people, or the fact it's going on on a .gov. (And before you scream at me for being a heartless sexist bastard or some such, this would be just as messed up if it were a bot that corrects your->you're. Passive aggressiveness certainly…

18F is doing phenomenal work fixing government. I'll let the excessive PC-ness slide.

It's a bot. Ignore it.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#24

Post by hwestbrook »

Seems as though she undermines her whole point with the "Here’s what is true about the “open source is really well funded” myth" section.

The open source projects that people/businesses really care about are funded. Isn't a non-funded open source project just one an open source project that no one really cares about?

I think there is a really subtle line that she has missed by assuming all open source projects developers use are really important. There probably should be at least three categories: (1) really important projects (funded / managed), (2) projects that are not really that important (not funded / managed by community) and (3) those that are not important (not funded / not managed).

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#25

Post by dyladan »

hwestbrook wrote: post #24

Seems as though she undermines her whole point with the "Here’s what is true about the “open source is really well funded” myth" section. The open source projects that people/businesses really care about are funded. Isn't a non-funded open source project just one an open source project that no one really cares about? I think there is a really subtle line that she has missed by assuming all open source projects develo…

This does not explain things like openssl that are important to just about every app but still horribly underfunded.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#26

Post by wmf »

hwestbrook wrote: post #24

Seems as though she undermines her whole point with the "Here’s what is true about the “open source is really well funded” myth" section. The open source projects that people/businesses really care about are funded. Isn't a non-funded open source project just one an open source project that no one really cares about? I think there is a really subtle line that she has missed by assuming all open source projects develo…

In recent years it has been discovered that OpenSSL, bash, and NTP (just off the top of my head) were critically underfunded for years.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#27

Post by scrollaway »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #23
scrollaway wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How wonderful is that site... https://18f.gsa.gov/2016/01/12/hacking-inclusion-by-customiz... I can't tell what's more wrong here. The passive-aggressiveness of writing a bot to correct people, or the fact it's going on on a .gov. (And before you scream at me for being a heartless sexist bastard or some such, this would be just as messed up if it were a bot that corrects your->you're. Passive aggressiveness certainly…

18F is doing phenomenal work fixing government. I'll let the excessive PC-ness slide. It's a bot. Ignore it.

For the record, I don't know who they are - I've seen them linked once before but I have no ties nor love for San Francisco and their work is very localized. So I don't particularly doubt their work but I literally just picked the top post on their front page. If they are doing phenomenal work, I'm not impressed :)

And seeing as my previous post is predictably getting instant downvoted, I should also state that I really don't care about PCness one way or another. What I do see is that "fixing government" apparently includes policing how people talk to each other in an extremely passive-aggressive way that would not be tolerated in any community I moderate or, really, have ever been a part of. All that in the name of improving workplace communications, which this simply does not achieve.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#28

Post by toomuchtodo »

scrollaway wrote: post #27
toomuchtodo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

18F is doing phenomenal work fixing government. I'll let the excessive PC-ness slide. It's a bot. Ignore it.

For the record, I don't know who they are - I've seen them linked once before but I have no ties nor love for San Francisco and their work is very localized. So I don't particularly doubt their work but I literally just picked the top post on their front page. If they are doing phenomenal work, I'm not impressed :) And seeing as my previous post is predictably getting instant downvoted, I should also state that I rea…

"For the record, I don't know who they are - I've seen them linked once before but I have no ties nor love for San Francisco and their work is very localized."

"And seeing as my previous post is predictably getting instant downvoted, I should also state that I really don't care about PCness one way or another. What I do see is that "fixing government" apparently includes policing how people talk to each other in an extremely passive-aggressive way that would not be tolerated in any community I moderate or, really, have ever been a part of. All that in the name of improving workplace communications, which this simply does not achieve."

So you have no idea who they are (they're a technology skunkworks within the GSA [1], which manages and supports the basic functioning of federal agencies of the US Federal Government) and you're commenting on their internal communications policy because you take issue with it?

Why would you even waste the time making an uneducated comment then?

You even make the comment that their work is localized to SF, when they have offices across the country in support of their work!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Services_Administratio...

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#29

Post by sarciszewski »

dzdt wrote: post #2

Bad headline. Article is about identifying open source infrastructure tools as an overlooked category for venture capital funding.

Thank you for that spectacular TL;DR.

No rational investor wants to invest in something that will absolutely not give them a return. Most open source infrastructure tools lack a business model to capture revenue from its users.

So one of several things will have to happen in order for open source infrastructure to get funded:

    - Investors will part ways with their money, full knowing that they
      will not see a return. (Unlikely to happen.)
    - Investors will strong-arm infrastructure projects into restructuring
      into a for-profit model. (Unlikely to succeed.)
    - People other than investors will have to step up. (Plausible.)
"People" here can refer to independently wealthy individuals, successful companies, the government, or a flash mob of donators (crowd-funding).

(Note: Return means capital return, not "social good" return.)

For the record, I contribute a little here and there to open source projects (usually in the form of vulnerability reporting) and started several FLOSS of my own (including several cryptography projects for PHP developers to use in their projects).

To date, I've made $0 from any of it, and I don't see that changing in the near future for me.

Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable

#30

Post by scrollaway »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #28
scrollaway wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, I don't know who they are - I've seen them linked once before but I have no ties nor love for San Francisco and their work is very localized. So I don't particularly doubt their work but I literally just picked the top post on their front page. If they are doing phenomenal work, I'm not impressed :) And seeing as my previous post is predictably getting instant downvoted, I should also state that I rea…

"For the record, I don't know who they are - I've seen them linked once before but I have no ties nor love for San Francisco and their work is very localized." "And seeing as my previous post is predictably getting instant downvoted, I should also state that I really don't care about PCness one way or another. What I do see is that "fixing government" apparently includes policing how people talk to each other in an e…

sighs When I said "the work is very localized", I meant that neither it nor its effects reach beyond the US - there are other countries.

I did take a couple of minutes to look them up further before commenting, but I was not aware it was completely forbidden to comment on first impressions on HN. You'll forgive the confusion, I see a lot of first-impression-driven comments around here.

You seem to be aggressively defending them - Why? I have not attacked them. I'll take you at your word when you said they're doing good work.

Does this answer your question on why I made that comment? It is pretty distressing that I have to defend myself making a comment on an internet forum.

Post reply on HN