11–20 of 118 posts
This is an interesting approach but not all talented developers partake in open source projects.
But those that have fun writing code usually do, or have done so at some point. It's some kind of filter, that's true, and there isn't any filter that's always fair.
Why would I release my software on github for free, when I can release it on Google market for money?
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
So what are you complaining about exactly? If you don't want to be judged by your own work, then there's no problem: that's your decision. If you do, but you refuse to let anyone see it, then you're creating your own problem, so you have no basis for complaint.
There is nothing "unfair" about this. Rather, you're given a choice about whether or not you want to participate and you have decided that you don't.
Everybody wants to hire the brightest developers, but there aren't enough to go around. It's a mathematical impossibility.
The Github projects are a very small part of the open source universe. You can easily build *BSD or LinuxFromScratch with a substantial userland without ever downloading anything from Github.
Could someone explain why "being on Github" is synonymous with "contributing to open source" in some circles? The Github projects are a very small part of the open source universe. You can easily build *BSD or LinuxFromScratch with a substantial userland without ever downloading anything from Github.
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
Look, I work on a lot of proprietary stuff as well, but even if Github didn't exist, we'd both be subject to the same "unfairness." Here's a job interview, circa 1981: Candidate 1: "I brought this fanfold printout of the source code for _____ I wrote with me, have a look. Candidate 2: "I can't show you any of the code, but trust me, it's good." Github merely drags that conversation forward from 1981 up to 2011. When…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But those that have fun writing code usually do, or have done so at some point. It's some kind of filter, that's true, and there isn't any filter that's always fair.
That used to be the case two years ago. Why would I release my software on github for free, when I can release it on Google market for money?