21–29 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RedHat is a pretty small % of total linux installations. I think you're reaching a bit with this general line of argumentation.
Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu is no less an executive than Matt Hicks if you'd rather use that distro instead. Mozilla has a CEO, and arguably if they paid better they'd have a better one at the helm.
And no company pays them enough to even cover the living expenses.
well, most successful oss projects are paid for through that one guy at the corner cubicle that has very few company responsibilities, but he maintains lib-fart-chart, which is also used at said company.
Wow, killer of a first paragraph. >Around 95 percent of this figure is attributable to 3,000 developers worldwide. In addition, open-source software is included in 96 percent of all codebases. Not shocking to see the big guns coming hard at FOSS.
$8.8T*0.95/3000 = $2.8B
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does open source avoid that? Red Hat, which got bought by IBM; both of them have executives in spades, as does Google and Meta, both of them are huge supporters of open source. (Not including Llama. Fsck Mark Zuckerberg for co-opting the term Open Source for llama when it isn't)
Of course, the PMC, being the parasites they are, will try to siffon value from everything they can. My point is merely that it's more difficult for them with Open source because quite often no money is changing hands. I don't pay for my operating system, I use Fedora. If I were to pay for it the rent seeking PMC will take their cut of what I paid, and most likely the largest cut.
You are more like the "PMC" in your statement than they are, because you just use other people's work. At least they add value.
The study appears to be this one from Jan 2024: Hoffmann, M., Nagle, F. and Zhou, Y., 2024. The value of open source software. Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper, (24-038). link to HBR summary (published March 2024): https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/open-source-so... link to the 2024 working paper [pdf]: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-038_51f8444f-...
brief critique of the methodology from a skim-read of the paper: > We first estimate the supply-side value by calculating the cost to recreate the most widely used OSS once. We then calculate the demand-side value based on a replacement value for each firm that uses the software and would need to build it internally if OSS did not exist. We estimate the supply-side value of widely-used OSS is $4.15 billion, but that…
This is part of the "labour theory of value".
And no company pays them enough to even cover the living expenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$8.8T*0.95/3000 = $2.8B
Does this support the idea behind the 10x and 100x developer concept? In my experience, they do exist.
Wow, killer of a first paragraph. >Around 95 percent of this figure is attributable to 3,000 developers worldwide. In addition, open-source software is included in 96 percent of all codebases. Not shocking to see the big guns coming hard at FOSS.
$8.8T*0.95/3000 = $2.8B
Or maybe I'm wrong, and OpenAI and Anthropic (which produce AIs which can code decently) are massively undervalued at only a hundred or so OSS developers each.
Sounds low. None of the companies I've worked for would have existed without open source.