Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm giving up on open source

nutjs.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 209 posts

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#141

Post by thayne »

bruce511 wrote: post #134
haswell wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think he's saying that his "professional journey building OSS" is over. ie his day job needs to generate income. I agree that he’s saying this. But FTA: > Open source is great, but it's not sustainable. We self-sabotaged ourselves over decades, and now we're at a point where it's hard to turn back. Publishing source code for the greater good is a noble cause, but to be honest, I think that over the years, using "…

There's OSS at the large-scale level (Linux, Firefox, Postgres) where the model is clearly working and sustainable. There's also OSS at the "one man band has a small project" level, where, IMO, the sustainable model has yet to be figured out.

At the one man band level, it works fine if it is a hobby. The problem is figuring out how to make a living supporting a small project.

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#142

Post by oliwarner »

Don't forget where your paying customers came from.

They didn't find your closed source plugins, they were funnelled in from the open source project. The split license plugin model works because both sides of it are useful to different groups of people.

You get to upsell your free users additional features or support.

But more than any of that, all users complain, even paying ones. Especially paying ones. Don't kid yourself into thinking going fully closed will stop that, the difference is you'll just be dealing with fewer people. That's not as good as it sounds.

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#143

Post by [deleted] »

000ooo000 wrote: post #139
moribvndvs wrote: post #128

I’m appalled by this, if I’m being honest. > Working on an open source project is still work, and if you're doing a good job, you should be rewarded for it. I also always believed that if you ever started a project that is valuable for companies, they would support you in return My friend, then you started in the wrong place. At the risk of getting into a mire over free vs open source software, I think you have funda…

>I do not believe you owe anyone anything just because you published a project, and you have the contract to prove it. However, I take issue with the “leaving and taking my toys with me”, You said it yourself. They owe no-one anything - the toys are theirs to take home. That anyone might think continued access to his toys is a right just smacks of entitlement.

[deleted]

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#144

Post by dalke »

bruce511 wrote: post #83
anaxamander wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think the root of your mis-expectation is in thinking that companies behave like people. Your viewpoint is personal "I would do this" and for you it's easy, it's your money so you just write a check. Companies don't work like that. Firstly because individuals get budgets, and there's no point wasting limited resources on free stuff. Secondly because individuals are accountable. There are procurement processes, mult…

That's far from enough.

I set up a company, had a no-cost+open source version for download, and a money+open source version ("commercial") for purchase, both with an MIT license. The commercial version was faster, with more features, and included support, and it was in the marketing literature from the start.

The goal was to give users a way to justify the expenditure to their budget people.

It didn't help. I was even at an open source conference where one of the industry presenters complained about how hard it was to pay open source developers.

Thing is, the presenter earlier gave a talk about their extensive use of my software - first time I knew they used it.

I pointed out that I could get them an invoice within 10 minutes, for an improved version of the tool they were using, plus support.

They did not take me up on the offer.

I now generally interpret "it's so hard to pay for open source" as cover for "we've heard it's hard so it's our excuse for why we don't even try."

I've tried other approaches too, like a consortium model for new feature development and support/maintenance. It wasn't enough to be economically viable. Yet companies include that software in products they sell. A few years ago I asked one of them for money for support, and was told it wasn't in the budget. What they do now is ask the current maintainers for free support.

My advice: if you plan to write OSS for a living, work for a company where that project demonstrably saves them money and/or lowers their risk on external vendors. Do not try to be an independent open source software vendor.

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#145

Post by CRConrad »

bruce511 wrote: post #134
haswell wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think he's saying that his "professional journey building OSS" is over. ie his day job needs to generate income. I agree that he’s saying this. But FTA: > Open source is great, but it's not sustainable. We self-sabotaged ourselves over decades, and now we're at a point where it's hard to turn back. Publishing source code for the greater good is a noble cause, but to be honest, I think that over the years, using "…

There's OSS at the large-scale level (Linux, Firefox, Postgres) where the model is clearly working and sustainable. There's also OSS at the "one man band has a small project" level, where, IMO, the sustainable model has yet to be figured out.

> There's OSS at the large-scale level (Linux, Firefox, Postgres) where the model is clearly working and sustainable.

Is it, really? At "the large-scale level" of the project, perhaps -- but what do we know about how "sustained" individual contributors even to those projects feel they are being?

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#146

Post by PhilipRoman »

MBCook wrote: post #44
unethical_ban wrote: post #40

Earlier 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…

That’s victim blaming. “They were unrealistic and should have known they’d be personally attacked, it’s their own fault for being weak”. Really? How about no one should be treated like shit for proving free software to you?

I agree with you, but in general any theory in the form of "the world should/shouldn't do XYZ" quickly falls apart when it meets reality. If you maintain any public communication channel, you are bound to get a bit of garbage coming in. You cannot fix it by saying how things should be.

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#147

Post by CRConrad »

spacechild1 wrote: post #135
bruce511 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> OSS also tends to attract, um, shall we say, those who are likely to be uncomplimentary. I maintain several small open source projects. The bug reports are generally helpful and the users very polite. People regularly thank me for my work and I cannot recall a single negative interaction. The trick is: my target audience are computer musicians :)

So you, as opposed to your customers, are just as grumpy and rude as the rest of us...? ;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist. But your observation -- basically, that if you want non-rude users / customers, don't direct your product at programmers / hackers / geeks -- is so common as to be almost a truism. Why is this? Are we all assholes, or WTF?!? Do we have to be?

Sigh...

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#148

Post by CRConrad »

Zancarius wrote: post #78
MBCook wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t have to be a reality. But people let it be. It’s only a reality because that kind of behavior is widely tolerated enough, or at least not met with harsh enough pushback, that it continues to drive away good contributors and cause burnout.

Exactly... This is so true, and it's sort of reflective of the human condition. If you tolerate a wide gamut of responses, and abuse, you're going to get abused. It sucks, but it's reality. The same thing happens (though, sometimes to a lesser degree, sometimes more) in our social circles. Boundaries are necessary in all facets of life. If they're not well-defined, then they're easily crossed and you're left trying t…

> If you tolerate a wide gamut of responses, and abuse, you're going to get abused.

Isn't there something called "the tolerance (or intolerance?) paradox"? Basically, something about "If you want tolerance to prevail, the one thing you can't tolerate is intolerance"? Think I've seen it mentioned here; others may be able to source my dim recollection.

Boils down to, I guess, if you don't want to get abused, abuse the crap out of abusers at the first offense.

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#149

Post by CRConrad »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #126
MBCook wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t have to be a reality. But people let it be. It’s only a reality because that kind of behavior is widely tolerated enough, or at least not met with harsh enough pushback, that it continues to drive away good contributors and cause burnout.

I wonder how much of this is actually about open source, and how much is about having been willing to engage (too much) with the kind of people still willing to use Github, Reddit, Discord ?

It was funny to see the comment by that entitled fucker who triggered this (ayn-something on the linked GitHub issue), something along the lines of "You should quit open Source; get off GitHub!" So clearly showed that a whole generation has been deluded into equating the Open Source movement[1] with GitHub... The commercial, closed-source Web site GitHub.

Oh well, they already equate git itself with gitHub, so why not Open Source too.

[1]: Not to mention the Free Software movement -- no use mentioning it, since they've never heard of it.

Re: I'm giving up on open source

#150

Post by CRConrad »

talldayo wrote: post #66
Eji1700 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 some…

> Selling your library sounds like a great deal if your B2B sales don't dry up and the investors buy into your story.

What "investors"?!? As a single developer, you need a computer and an Internet connection. Where do the six-(or seven-, or eight-)figure amounts of Venture Capital investment come in?

> 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.

That's what the LGPL is for: Even if you release your actual product only under a commercial license, you can help improve the tools you use, to pay back your karma to the community that enables you to do the whole thing in the first place.

(Disclaimer: This is the only way I can see being able to both make a living as a one-man software development company and participate in / contribute to FOSS... But I haven't taken the leap of faith, put my living where my mouth is. (Yet.) So this could all be hot air.)

Post reply on HN