Live data from Hacker News

The Cathedral and the Bizarre

marktarver.com

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#61

I have like 30 projects on github, I don't expect any of them to really go anywhere, it's just where I put stuff when I'm playing with a new concept. There are ~3 projects that I would have actually have liked to go somewhere, real projects not toys, that I have abandoned. So that "98% of projects" statistic is fair, but I think those numbers would be looking a lot better if you accounted for the fact that github is…

> I have like 30 projects on github, I don't expect any of them to really go anywhere, it's just where I put stuff when I'm playing with a new concept.

Then why put it there?

git works fine without github. And by putting your projects on github all you did was add to the baseline white noise that people have to filter through.

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#62
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a mild description of what appear to be the incoherent ramblings of a nutcase. He keeps a blog here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/qilang in case you are interested in learning how bad chi will influence your dealings with Shen, or Qi, or ..

Being insane does not mean you're wrong. If we're going to say that X is wrong because Y said it, well Stallman is an albatross around the neck of everyone who talks about free software.

Being insane may mean you're not even wrong.

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most open source code is poor or unusable Is there any special reason to believe that closed source is any better? If we can count the sea of abandonware on Github, then we get to count the mountain of "interesting" code that remains internal to large companies, or worse, the stuff that actually got released on unsuspecting customers.

Generally, a business pays developers to write software that it expects to be put to immediate use, which means that most of the time it functions, at least minimally. I'm sure exceptions exist, of course. FLOSS abandonware has no such constraint.

Generally, expectations do not define reality.

I'm not just being contrary, I've worked on a project for a year or two that got scrapped, and I think it happens a lot.

Another way to look at it, is that if you have programmers that are regular employees and not temps or something, you might as well have them work on something that's not very important, or that's risky, when you don't have something better for them to do, because you're paying them anyway.

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#64

"No mathematical theorem, no enjoyable novel, no work of art of any importance, have ever been produced by a herd. I fail to see why innovative software ought to play by a different set of rules." Nobody tell this guy about Bourbaki... He's also probably never enjoyed a movie.

The Bible has something like 40 authors. It would probably be classified as a "work of art of importance", even if you don't classify it as anything more than that.

I would say of course, there is art to be found in it, but as a whole, it's obviously not a work of art simply because it's a bunch of unrelated and overlapping pieces, with arbitrary parts removed via historical accident, no matter how much people try to claim otherwise.

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#65
post #7

The facts as presented by this article do not match the facts I remember. I'm an old fart and was actually alive and active writing software at that time. The cathedral and the bazaar was not a book, it was an essay. They apparently later turned it into a book but I know nobody who read the book. The essay, in contrast, was read by everybody in the scene. Here's how I remember it. Open source has no specific meaning…

Before personal computers, wasn't free/open software the default because there wasn't a mass market for software? I think I've been told something like that by someone of an older generation.

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#66
post #2

>...an article puts the abandonment rate of open source projects on Github at about 98% - meaning that there is no activity on 98% of projects after a year [0]. This has coined a phrase - abandonware. I'm not a programmer, I'm a researcher. Let me tell you a fact: about 100% of research articles are not updated. Somehow the link [0] cited in the article makes an indirect similar point, but what's wrong with programs…

Not to mention that abandoned github repos wind up in google searches and I have learned something from looking at them in such a context, even if untouched for years.

Don't delete your repos because they are "old". You could be doing a favor for some random person with a google search, looking at something you looked at too.

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#67
post #2

>...an article puts the abandonment rate of open source projects on Github at about 98% - meaning that there is no activity on 98% of projects after a year [0]. This has coined a phrase - abandonware. I'm not a programmer, I'm a researcher. Let me tell you a fact: about 100% of research articles are not updated. Somehow the link [0] cited in the article makes an indirect similar point, but what's wrong with programs…

Moreover he's using the large amount of wreckage to argue that the Darwinian process of selecting "category killers" isn't working, which is completely backwards. If "category killer" is a winner-take-all competition, then there are going to be a vast number of losers, and we do see a vast number of unmaintained projects. It's just that no one is bothering to remove them from view when they're defeated.

The analogy might be clearer if instead of GitHub we used Fossil.

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#68
The article is wrong in attributing "open source" to Eric Raymond alone. As it's now used, it was apparently coined by Christine Patterson and mutually agreed to at a meeting where Eric Raymond was present in February 5, 1998. [1]

According to the release history, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" was written in 1997, but originally used the term "free software". The term was changed to "open source" on February 9th. [2]

[1] https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... [2] http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, a business pays developers to write software that it expects to be put to immediate use, which means that most of the time it functions, at least minimally. I'm sure exceptions exist, of course. FLOSS abandonware has no such constraint.

Generally, expectations do not define reality. I'm not just being contrary, I've worked on a project for a year or two that got scrapped, and I think it happens a lot. Another way to look at it, is that if you have programmers that are regular employees and not temps or something, you might as well have them work on something that's not very important, or that's risky, when you don't have something better for them to…

[deleted]

Re: The Cathedral and the Bizarre

#70
> There's a larger group of not-so-harmless people than the givers who are driven by greed for free stuff and a sense of entitlement. We can call these the takers. Takers are generally abusive if their entitlement is challenged; because to criticise the open source model is to take away their intellectual candy and the result is a tantrum. Amongst this larger group are a smaller group of DRM crackers and pirates. In nearly all open source projects, they outnumber the givers.

What an absurd dichotomy. Even if you work full time on open source, you probably can't be a major contributor to more than a handful of large projects, at most; many people specialize in just one. But you probably use dozens to hundreds of open source programs. So for any project with a modicum of popularity, of course the number of people who use the software without contributing dwarfs the number of contributors. That would be true even if everyone worked full time on open source.

Admittedly, the OP's definition of "takers" is not just "people who use without contributing", but tacks on some ad hominem insults to supposedly qualify it. The result has very little resemblance to reality. Sure, there will always be some people who become truly abusive if a project makes a change they don't like. But they're definitely a minority. Most people, facing such a situation, don't speak up at all; they might be annoyed, but they keep it to themselves. Others do speak up, but know how to be polite about it. Perhaps the OP assumes that people should not voice negative opinions at all, if they're not contributing to a given project. I disagree. A good default assumption is that open source maintainers are open to polite and well-reasoned negative feedback. A maintainer can always forbid such feedback in official project forums if they so choose; if they do, users should respect it, but it's is not a very gracious move.

And what the heck do DRM cracking and piracy have to do with anything? In my experience, those people – whom I respect – form communities which are oriented around piracy, and pretty separate from the open source world. In part this is because the nature of the work they do is different; reverse engineering is different from software development, and many pirates do neither of those, but just use existing tools to distribute pirated copies of whatever type of media they're fans of (e.g. anime). I'd say they're also more likely (compared to programmers as a whole) to use cracked proprietary software instead of open source. Of course, this is a massive overgeneralization, but the point is that bringing them up makes no sense.

Post reply on HN