An interesting project, from what I can tell it's a JavaScript version of AutoHotkey's window interaction features? (also it works on Linux and Mac!) Very cool!
I'm giving up on open source
61–70 of 209 posts
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#62I totally sympathize with not wanting to work on something that has become neither financially nor personally rewarding. I think the "early access" subscription model is a good, fair one, and I hope it succeeds. > I also always believed that if you ever started a project that is valuable for companies, they would support you in return But this just seems incredibly unrealistic. It's not remotely the norm for small op…
How relevant; https://x.com/ocornut/status/1074602216638611456
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#63I'm struggling with the framing of all of this. I think it's clear that the author doesn't want to be involved with the realities (as unfortunate as they are) of maintaining an OSS project. There are very real issues with entitled or abusive users that have been well documented. What I don't understand is the expectation that the money would just flow upon publishing the software with a permissive license. It sounds…
> most people won't pay for software if ... they don't have a vested interest in the project succeeding.
Wouldn't you expect companies that rely on a given project to have a vested interest in the project succeeding? I wouldn't choose to spend who-knows-how-many man hours on migrating to a new technology instead of paying a modest (for a business) fee for licensing something I rely on.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#64I will never understand how entitled or mean people can be towards OSS devs. I sympathize with this post a great deal and wish the author all the best in whatever he does next.
I don't think this is unique to FOSS. There's always haters.
Do you think Windows 11 devs don't get cursed at? Sure they do but because Microsoft shields them from the users they don't know about it. I can't log an angry issue against the windows repo because they've added yet another stupid ad somewhere. And the same goes with most commercial software.
Most commercial outfits have support and development split out into different functions. It's pretty unique to FOSS that end users can log issues directly with the devs.
And for a support person it's easier to deal with this because it's not their own work that's being criticised so they don't take it personally. I was in support myself and I was pretty emphatic with customers, because in many cases they were right, our software really did suck because there was way too much attention spent on marketing and not enough on UX.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#65This may be an unpopular opinion but my honest take on open source is MIT license or GTFO: Give the shit fully away, know you're giving it away, and importantly your strategy includes giving it away
The money is another channel. If you haven't figured out that channel, then it's in the form of W-2 employment which you landed due to your very impressive project.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nailed it. Particularly the fact that as valid as OP's situation is, it isn't necessarily indicative of FOSS as a whole. They basically say it in their article: They grew up on the koolaid (no offense, so did I) of how awesome Linux and BSD are, and the GNU principles that closed source software is unethical, to be avoided, and so on. It seems the harsh reality of "Not everyone can be sustained by a nonprofit foundat…
I've always found the diehard linux/FOSS crowd naive and abrasive simply because it seems to totally ignore reality. If you're good at coding, and you enjoy coding, you probably want to do it for a living. Not as a second job, not as a side project, and certainly not as a charity case that just flat out will not sustain you. There are precious few things that have the adoption and support linux has, and a lot of that…
It's turtles all the way down. Selling your library sounds like a great deal if your B2B sales don't dry up and the investors buy into your story. But then you reach a pit of disillusionment where you realize that you relied on free software more than your own work, and probably ran up quite the karmic deficit selling whatever product you made. Maybe you decide that you don't care, but you have to reason with it somehow.
I think a lot of people lash out at the entrepreneurial spirit because a business venture inherently necessitates risk. Your audience is not going to reward high-risk plays, and if your business proposition threatens their use-case enough then they'll probably protest. That train of logic isn't "diehard linux/FOSS" in my mind but more just holding someone to their own standards. Making a living out of coding is one thing, but turning your passion project into a business is another. If simple abrasive comments are what made them quit Open Source, I can't imagine how long they'd last trying to sell people a Javascript library.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#67I'm struggling with the framing of all of this. I think it's clear that the author doesn't want to be involved with the realities (as unfortunate as they are) of maintaining an OSS project. There are very real issues with entitled or abusive users that have been well documented. What I don't understand is the expectation that the money would just flow upon publishing the software with a permissive license. It sounds…
I don't think he's suggesting everyone should abandon OSS. he's still using it, and contributing.
I think he's saying that his "professional journey building OSS" is over. ie his day job needs to generate income.
The abuse part exists in all software, free and commercial. But it's especially galling when you did the work for free. OSS also tends to attract, um, shall we say, those who are likely to be uncomplimentary. (Spending money on things means you're more likely to like it.)
The root point though is well made, and another annedotal data point - relying on random "companies supporting you with voluntary payments" is not a business model, and fundamentally misunderstands how businesses work.
Hint - If you don't -invoice- then youre not getting paid.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#68You do need to develop a very thick skin in OSS to be able to thrive. You need to learn to just block those issues+people, both in the repo and mentally. I'm a nobody, but still some of my projects got a bit popular and I felt the heat, e.g. one of them was a CSS library which was very "beginner friendly", so people came constantly to the Issues to ask help with their CSS and how to do their job (not about the librar…
or we could demand that users of free software shouldn't dictate the culture of the community and that maintainers don't need thick skin. Instead maybe we should ask that users should be respectful and courteous.
People do ask, but the abrasive ones will double down on it a lot of the time. All I do on my two projects is just block them/ignore them. I've had people make up whole new accounts to get at me again after a block on reddit and twitter
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#69I've met people like the public accuser, both online and IRL. Usually, they're quite easy to ignore and block out -- his comments on the GitHub issue are laughable after all.
His KoFi page even has the following blurb:
> I'm a software developer trying to make people's lives easier and more pleasant.
So, mission failed successfully I guess.
But ignoring comments like that becomes way harder when they're attacking things you care deeply about -- like the last 6 years of your work -- even to an absurd extent. Even when you know you don't owe random internet strangers anything. (If anyone has any tips on how to do this mindset better, I'm all ears.)
Last-straw moments really suck, and all the best to the author with whatever comes next, even and especially if it's "more of the same but without the BS".
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#70I'm struggling with the framing of all of this. I think it's clear that the author doesn't want to be involved with the realities (as unfortunate as they are) of maintaining an OSS project. There are very real issues with entitled or abusive users that have been well documented. What I don't understand is the expectation that the money would just flow upon publishing the software with a permissive license. It sounds…
Nailed it. Particularly the fact that as valid as OP's situation is, it isn't necessarily indicative of FOSS as a whole. They basically say it in their article: They grew up on the koolaid (no offense, so did I) of how awesome Linux and BSD are, and the GNU principles that closed source software is unethical, to be avoided, and so on. It seems the harsh reality of "Not everyone can be sustained by a nonprofit foundat…
>They grew up on the koolaid (no offense, so did I)
you grew up thinking you were drinking koolaid, but you weren't, it was indeed fine wine.
> of how awesome Linux and BSD are
it's hard to think of two things more awesome than those two things. There's no koolaid, they are monumental achievements and are amazing.
>the GNU principles that closed source software is unethical
Stallman is/was a socialist, so yes, he had a Marxist take, "from those who have the ability, to those who have the need" and "there should be a limit to concentration of wealth regardless of the value of what you provide": much like so many people here. So yes, that's koolaid, but given that a majority of young people/people here believe it, you can't really pin that koolaid on GNU or open source, that's koolaid that was brought from home.
But the rest of Stallman's idea and motivation, that if you find an annoying bug while using your printer, you and everybody else benefits if you have the source to the printer driver to fix it: that's not koolaid, that's the same type of can-do idea that drove "American ingenuity" on the frontier. It's nice to be able to fix a printer just like the blacksmith could fix your plough, and once in awhile we get together for a barn-raisin'.
I just think you're oversimplifying and mixing separate concepts.