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

The People's Code

code.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: The People's Code

#121

Post by random_rr »

serge2k wrote: post #35
random_rr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of internal resistance to open sourcing code. Lots of people believe that their code is their secret sauce - and why would you have highly paid consultants create code just so the next department can take it? There's also security concerns to take into account - which I know someone will say is a good thing, because of transparency and so forth. But just realize that it's not a trivial amount of work t…

> There is a lot of internal resistance to open sourcing code Too fucking bad. Do it or get fired.

I'm sure contractors and government employees also don't want people with this level of vitriol looking over their code and sniping them from afar. :)

Re: The People's Code

#122

Post by random_rr »

joshdotsmith wrote: post #20
methodin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only imagine the nightmare attempting to explain to non-tech folks why it's good to give away the code they are writing.

We give away the laws we write. In fact, the government provides an awful lot of services. If the taxpayer paid for it, the taxpayer should certainly be able to own it. I've never personally found it difficult to explain that to non-technical people.

That's why I own a SR-71 Blackbird and my own naval destroyer... come on guys, grow up.

Re: The People's Code

#123

Post by trdrake »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #25
random_rr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of internal resistance to open sourcing code. Lots of people believe that their code is their secret sauce - and why would you have highly paid consultants create code just so the next department can take it? There's also security concerns to take into account - which I know someone will say is a good thing, because of transparency and so forth. But just realize that it's not a trivial amount of work t…

But isn't everything made by the government in the public domain?

you mean like NSA toolkits?

Re: The People's Code

#124

Post by iamatworknow »

joepie91_ wrote: post #106
Alupis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You took the time to go search through those repos, and then took the time to come here and point out your findings. You could have easily just copy pasted what you wrote here into an Issue on those repos. It would have helped out your government, made these projects a tad bit better, and taught a few developers something they'll remember in the future when they write more software for the government. It's part of th…

Reporting issues to a vendor takes a hell of a lot of effort and time compared to idly posting them in a comment thread. This is like those remarks along the lines of "it only takes 5 minutes to submit a patch to the documentation". No, it doesn't - it takes 5 minutes to write it and create a PR, and usually two hours to defend it from the maintainer's criticisms.

>usually two hours to defend it from the maintainer's criticisms

Isn't that what we want, though? Discussion and review, particularly with the people who are most familiar with the project (the maintainers) is what makes software better, not worse. If you're not willing to do that then why comment on issues you find in open source projects at all, other than to stroke your own ego?

Re: The People's Code

#125

Post by icc97 »

pokemon-trainer wrote: post #104
jwarren wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Clash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsS0cvTxU-8

"I Fought the Law" is a song written by Sonny Curtis of the Crickets and popularized by a remake by the Bobby Fuller Four, which went on to become a top-ten hit for the band in 1966 and was also recorded by the Clash in 1979.

Yes indeed you're correct. Another nice theory of mine ruined by actual evidence. I'm still hoping that the guy making the comment got it from The Clash though, just cause I'm biased towards them.

Re: The People's Code

#126

Post by OliverJones »

How about open source code for some makes and models of voting machine?

The US Veterans' Administration health records software system is in the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA#Licensing_and_disseminat... But it's not listed here. (It's also kind of complex. "wget; tar x; ./configure ; make" probably won't get you a running instance. Still.

Re: The People's Code

#127

Post by mi100hael »

OliverJones wrote: post #126

How about open source code for some makes and models of voting machine? The US Veterans' Administration health records software system is in the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA#Licensing_and_disseminat... But it's not listed here. (It's also kind of complex. "wget; tar x; ./configure ; make" probably won't get you a running instance. Still.

Voting machines are products produced by private firms. Getting them to publish the source code is about as likely as getting Apple to publish the source for iOS.

Re: The People's Code

#128

Post by trendia »

mi100hael wrote: post #127
OliverJones wrote: post #126

How about open source code for some makes and models of voting machine? The US Veterans' Administration health records software system is in the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA#Licensing_and_disseminat... But it's not listed here. (It's also kind of complex. "wget; tar x; ./configure ; make" probably won't get you a running instance. Still.

Voting machines are products produced by private firms. Getting them to publish the source code is about as likely as getting Apple to publish the source for iOS.

Actually, with monopsony it's rather simple:

"If you don't publish the code, then we will have to use paper ballots."

Re: The People's Code

#129

Post by joepie91_ »

iamatworknow wrote: post #124
joepie91_ wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reporting issues to a vendor takes a hell of a lot of effort and time compared to idly posting them in a comment thread. This is like those remarks along the lines of "it only takes 5 minutes to submit a patch to the documentation". No, it doesn't - it takes 5 minutes to write it and create a PR, and usually two hours to defend it from the maintainer's criticisms.

>usually two hours to defend it from the maintainer's criticisms Isn't that what we want, though? Discussion and review, particularly with the people who are most familiar with the project (the maintainers) is what makes software better, not worse. If you're not willing to do that then why comment on issues you find in open source projects at all, other than to stroke your own ego?

No, it's not. Legitimate discussion and review, sure - but that doesn't take two hours. The problem is with maintainers arguing over small changes, trying to trivialize them, finding reasons to reject them, asking contributors to do more work first... It's pretty much impossible to just leave a contribution and move on.

This is something I encounter constantly. It's why I've stopped bothering submitting documentation fixes in most cases, and now resort to writing and publishing my own documentation. It makes one-off contributions to open-source unreasonably costly and non-viable. I know many others who feel the same.

If maintainers want more contributions to their open-source projects, they need to start recognizing that the contributor's time and skills are valuable as well - that means not second-guessing contributions unless there's a concrete reason to do so, and making an effort to write a comprehensive response to a contribution (especially if it's a rejection). And most of all, being clear about this policy.

It's easy to say "why don't you submit it to the project?" from the sidelines, but the reality is that 'formal' contributions nearly always come with an expectation of dedicating your time and attention towards them on a more-or-less ongoing basis. Many people cannot afford that, and as such publish them elsewhere.

Changing that starts with maintainers, not with contributors.

Re: The People's Code

#130

Post by toomuchtodo »

greglindahl wrote: post #83
toomuchtodo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works created by the federal government are in the public domain, per section 105 of the copyright code. So you'd be right I can't use a FOIA request to obtain the code, but if obtained through other methods, I believe I'm in the clear for hosting it on Github.

Basically, you're trying to figure out some way to piss off the techies and managers you want to convince to be more open? Even if FOIA worked on code, you really aren't helping your cause..

> you're trying to figure out some way to piss off the techies and managers

I'm not trying to piss anyone off, but to be honest, I don't really care if I do. I'm simply trying to pry government open into being more transparent through any means necessary.

> you want to convince to be more open

No. Not in the slightest. My opinion doesn't matter anywhere in government, so I'm left with the tools at my disposal.

> Even if FOIA worked on code, you really aren't helping your cause..

When the carrot doesn't work, one must use the stick.

Post reply on HN