Live data from Hacker News

Did capitalism hack the open-source model?

medium.com

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: Did capitalism hack the open-source model?

#11
I'm sorry, but this article just seems to muddle the issues, based on some misguided idea that open source was a method for plucky independent developers to profit from the code paid by big corporations (in this case, Chromium) while being immune from their power.

The whole premise that "capitalism hacked open-source" is itself ahistorical: if anything, open-source was a creation of capitalism, by people who disliked that Free Software had ethical implications, and wanted a term that would strip those and make it "corporation friendly".

Does Google and other big corps profit off open source developers? No shit; that was the point.

Re: Did capitalism hack the open-source model?

#12
I see open source and capitalism as very similar ideas. It really is summed up in the absence of rules. And I like the analogy from the article

> empty spaces do not remain vacant for a very long time

But this seems to be impling that we need rules otherwise they'll be taken up by greedy companies. I think this is underestimating the role of the individual, who ultimately is the one who decides who gets business.

Maybe instead of being "Google addicts" but expecting the everything to be balanced, maybe we should be more conscious and intentional about who gets our business.

Re: Did capitalism hack the open-source model?

#13
I look at another part of society, where the hacking and getting hacked has a long tradition- lawyers and the law. And money subverts them all. In the long run. So lets look at yet another part of society- our own bodys. How does the body detect intruders, or even prevent theire entrance?

1) Provide no interface for hacking. Our stomaches and colons are our main energy interface - they regenerate at a increddible rate. Slimy, colon cells, they live fast, they die fast, holding on to them is near impossible.

2) Have a pre-warn system for getting hacked. If your sensory apparatus deteriorates, go in full reverse on all operations.

3) A general good feature to have - the ability to undo damage, by doing a full reset to a previously working state. Good in software development, good for a society, its a nice last line of defense, that the comon citizen can veto-vote direct democratic.

4) Divide and Conquer: Prevent accumulations of power, by allowing monopolies to be legally usurped. Can proof your employer is in a cartel/monopoly? Congratualations, you are allowed to march out with x% of the company into a seperate company.

5)Dont be a static target. A passive defense is weakness, as it gives the attacker infinite attempts. If attacked, and the attack is proofable, dissolve the attacker, integrate his strengths into the defenses.

Re: Did capitalism hack the open-source model?

#14

Most open source models (bsd, gpl2, mit, etc.) were meant to harness capitolism, and they seem to have done rather well with a few glaring exceptions like android. Arguing to abandon it because its not the communist utopia promised by literally nobody is asinine.

When we talked a decade ago about "when open source wins", we were really excited for it. Now that it's happened, some people are freaking out. This is what winning looks like, though. This was the plan all along.
Post reply on HN