71–80 of 251 posts
> 7 to 10 thousand people were using the app every month. Given that, their income seems about right. Only a tiny fraction of (potential) users are typically willing to pay anything.
I have been thinking about closing my Github account and moving all my code to gitweb on one of my personal domains. I'm tired of the social/popularity contest aspect of Github and just want to write and publish code that I find interesting. I also want more control and I don't want my code used for AI research like co pilot. I thought about trying source hut, or something similar, but I feel it will end-up just like…
That all said, the author of SourceHut seems really principled in regards to what they're building. If I was going to bet money on one person not ending up like GitHub (and one platform not ending up like GitHub), I'd probably bet on them.
I kicked the wheels on it recently and was really impressed, though I'm unsure if I'll use it full time yet - for all it does well (kind of putting git back to what it should be), it does draw a line in the sand where I'm not sure I'd draw it. Something like Gitea might be another option since it can provide a familiar enough interface to drive-by contributors.
In truth, I wish Gitea had support for git-send-email similar to SourceHut. Feels like it'd be the best of both worlds.
I continue to think that the best model is the one adopted by Fody.NET[0]. It's open-source, on GitHub, under the MIT license, developed in the open, and with a voluntary OpenCollective. And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. The result is a system that is paid enough to be excellent, excellent enough for most users not to need suppor…
I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Sure, the maintainers have no obligation to review and merge other people's PRs. But when this also applies to genuine high-quality community contributions, I feel like there must be some negative side effects. I'm sure this model works well for an established project like Fody that's already quite highly polished, but I'd be pretty sad if all (or even a significant subset) of…
I think this may be a case where because you have a bunch of freedoms, you feel like you should have more.
I say this to re-assure you, not critisize you.
Open Source, and Free Software, are very clear on the 4 freedoms you enjoy. You can use, modify, distribute etc.
But it's not a 2-way street. You have no rights about what goes back into the project, the author is under no obligation to receive code contributions, no obligation to add features, fix bugs, or anything like that.
Of course lots of projects actively seek out contributions, but it's certainly not a requirement - nor (IMO) should it be.
Coversely open source has struggled to find viable financial models. This sounds like a success story and we should look long and hard at any successful financial model.
So, I don't think you should feel unsure. If you want to contribute then chip in some loot. If it means the project becomes sustainable you are the big winner.
But most of all, I think, be careful of adding "more freedoms" to your understanding of OS and FS, when they don't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? What contribution are you imagining that involves a PR to all 2500 projects?
Applying this business model to every project they use.
May I ask: let's say I am Joe Schmoe, an individual, not a corporation. But I have a particular need for coding done in, say, AutoHotKey or as an Outlook macro. I wish to pay someone for this small coding project. What is the best forum to do this exchange? I'm assuming this question would be on-topic to this thread because it is essentially, "If someone DOES want to help you to pay your rent, or at least for a week'…
I continue to think that the best model is the one adopted by Fody.NET[0]. It's open-source, on GitHub, under the MIT license, developed in the open, and with a voluntary OpenCollective. And if you open an issue or pull request and you're not on the OpenCollective, it's usually immediately closed, by policy. The result is a system that is paid enough to be excellent, excellent enough for most users not to need suppor…
It doesn't work if the project hasn't had any new issues in a while. There is no incentive to be part of the OpenCollective if the project is completed and has no bugs. I've been struggling with this issue with my project. It's a completed project, no scope creep, no bugs, just occasional update once every 6 months or so. The docs are complete and detailed so nobody needs extra help; no one will pay for support At th…
It sounds to me like you have a solid project, and some number of users. With good docs. Which is great (we'll done.)
I'm assuming you want to monetize it? That seems to be the logical next step. Alas I'm not going to be very comforting with the next bit.
A) the time to think about monetization is when you start the project, not when it's done. Obviously a lot of projects get done for reasons other than money, and when you started you may have had other reasons. That's fine. But monetizing after-the-fact is a very difficult, dare I say "unsolved" problem.
B) this is going to sting, but most successful money-earning products have nothing to do with the code, beyond that it exists. A "business" requires more than "product" - a lot more. Marketing, sales, revenue, administration and so on. All of this is expensive, hence the need to have a business plan (ie, how does this thing make money?) before you start.
As developers we have a code-first mindset. But we try and compete with companies that have a business-first mindset. Companies are winning.
The fact that your project is complete, that it is solid is fantastic. Well done for that. However turning it into a business may be impossible, or expensive. That's OK. Celebrate what is is, don't pine for what isn't.
If nothing else you've learned the difference between a code project, and a business, and if you internalise that then you will have gained something of high value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Sure, the maintainers have no obligation to review and merge other people's PRs. But when this also applies to genuine high-quality community contributions, I feel like there must be some negative side effects. I'm sure this model works well for an established project like Fody that's already quite highly polished, but I'd be pretty sad if all (or even a significant subset) of…
>> I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I think this may be a case where because you have a bunch of freedoms, you feel like you should have more. I say this to re-assure you, not critisize you. Open Source, and Free Software, are very clear on the 4 freedoms you enjoy. You can use, modify, distribute etc. But it's not a 2-way street. You have no rights about what goes back into the project, the author is under no…
"GitHub stars won't pay your rent" No. But they'll give me the satisfaction my day job never will.
I agree. I recently starting contributing to an open source project, really enjoy the feeling of contributing and interacting with other passionate contributors and maintainers.
At my day job, the expectation are vague, I have no real power, the people who do can't answer my questions intelligently, and at the end it's like I did some miniscule part of a system that works just OK, but not up to my standards.