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

Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 469 posts

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#271

Post by ryanlol »

davidw wrote: post #270
copsarebastards wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSSH, Firefox, Apache, etc. In addition, some projects that are not well-funded as a project are "funded" in the sense that companies pay people to work on them, for example Microsoft paying Simon Peyton Jones to work on GHC.

It's a complex topic, so I think it's best to look at different funding models differently. Ubuntu is funded by Canonical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth in other words. So one big donor. Debian... seems to mostly get by on volunteer labor and be ok with it, or it did when I was involved with them. Has that changed? I suspect that in some ways Debian is underfunded given the amount of work they do. Pe…

AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#272

Post by rcfox »

sukilot wrote: post #247
ekidd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As jordigh points out, RMS has always been quite happy to charge money for software. For example, the FSF sells a $5,000 "Deluxe Distribution" compiled for a platform of your choice: http://gnu.ist.utl.pt/order/order.html I've spoken to various people at the FSF, and they're generally quite enthusiastic about charging money for GPLed software. But to make a larger point, if you try to model RMS's behavior using cynic…

FWIW, RMS does live mostly as a nomadic ascetic (sort of like a Buddhist monk surviving on alms), which suggests that he believes that is an acceptable lifestyle for a hacker.

One can choose to adopt a certain lifestyle without believing that everyone else should also adopt it.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#273

Post by davidw »

ryanlol wrote: post #271
davidw wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complex topic, so I think it's best to look at different funding models differently. Ubuntu is funded by Canonical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth in other words. So one big donor. Debian... seems to mostly get by on volunteer labor and be ok with it, or it did when I was involved with them. Has that changed? I suspect that in some ways Debian is underfunded given the amount of work they do. Pe…

AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation.

I've never heard one way or the other whether it is or not; I'd be curious to see some data.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#274

Post by whichfawkes »

pyre wrote: post #99
hf wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using Ubuntu, I see from your profile. How much have you paid them? This is how the stories goes: we haven't figured out how to make good work worthwhile. Perhaps we can learn something from our vast experience in profitably peddling shit?

> You are using Ubuntu, I see from your profile. How much have you paid them? It's easier for businesses to write off these type donations (and make them for significant amounts) than for private individuals to do so.

It's easier still for a business to pay for a support contract, contributing to Canonical's revenue. Perhaps they could send a small fraction of that money to projects like GPG.

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#275

Post by detaro »

Torgo wrote: post #264
chkuendig wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FIY: That's 3.8% assuming everybody donated by credit card. Anybody got an idea why they pay so much?

Maybe it includes unfavorable (normal for credit card xactions) exchange rate conversions?

Aren't these generally dumped on the person paying?

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#276

Post by Alupis »

ryanlol wrote: post #271
davidw wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complex topic, so I think it's best to look at different funding models differently. Ubuntu is funded by Canonical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth in other words. So one big donor. Debian... seems to mostly get by on volunteer labor and be ok with it, or it did when I was involved with them. Has that changed? I suspect that in some ways Debian is underfunded given the amount of work they do. Pe…

AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation.

> AFAIK Ubuntu is profitable for Canonical, so I wouldn't call that a donation.

Unfortunately, that is very far from true.

Ubuntu was negative $21 million USD in 2013[1]. Canonical would literally make money by just not doing Ubuntu anymore.[2]

(Every time Canonical is on the verge of bankruptcy, Shuttleworth re-seeds back into the company from his personal checkbook)

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/199373896/Canonical-Group-Limited-...

(the numbers are represented in thousands, so 21,343 is 21,343,000)

[2] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/mark-shuttlew...

The significant losses due to Ubuntu development and related expenses are why Canonical as-of-late has been turning focus away from Ubuntu towards other markets such as Mobile and especially Enterprise (a la Red Hat's turf).

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#277

Post by vacri »

hf wrote: post #149
mason55 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would a free software project 'pay it forward'? As mentioned by the grandparent comment, GPG is in use by Debian, Ubuntu and RedHat package managers. Whether or not you count those three as free software they have plenty of money to pay forward to a piece of software that underpins their entire stacks.

The point isn't easily settled, it seems: I am having a hard time to find financial statements from Debian. Ubuntu, or rather Canonical, being a private company, doesn't seem to release financial information. The Ubuntu main page doesn't even provide a 'donate' link anymore. Which leaves RedHat, at last. A public company, of course[0]: Operating profit 2014: $ 1.3e9 Net total income 2014: $ 178.3e6 [0] http://investo…

This article claims that $222k was the budget for 2012 for Debian, down at the bottom. It also claims the budget should be $19B, if paid at market rates.

http://www.pc-freak.net/blog/what-is-the-development-costs-o...

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#278

Post by drcube »

peapicker wrote: post #61
agwa wrote: post #4

Calling GnuPG "email encryption software" really understates its importance. It's also used in countless applications to encrypt data at rest, and GPG signatures are used to secure the distribution of software. For instance, GPG is an essential part of the package managers of Debian, Ubuntu, and RedHat. Here is a link to the donation page: https://gnupg.org/donate/index.html

Seems odd that the MANY projects dependent on GPG don't donate enough to GPG to employ one guy. Do Free Software project with funding 'pay it forward' to the volunteers on other projects they heavily depend on? (I don't really know) If not, they deserve to suffer the consequences.

"Pay it forward" means to grant a favor or gift on a random person, in remembrance of one who did a favor for you before. The idea is to initiate a chain of favors and gifts to brighten the world in general.

It's a play on words though, by analogy with "Pay it back" which is returning a favor to one who did a favor for you first (like paying back a debt). In the case of large distros being heavily reliant on GPG and other upstream projects, I think the applicable term here is "pay it back".

Upstream developers helped out Debian, et al, and now Debian needs to pay those developers back. Arguably, by gifting their distros to the world at large, they're already "paying it forward".

Re: Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who Is Going Broke

#279

Post by serf »

slowpoison wrote: post #200

It's a bit disappointing that G10code[1] https identity verification fails. May be it makes sense given that he's short on $$$$. [1] https://g10code.com/

it's just self-signed.

All that means is that you are transferring trust to the owner of the site, rather than a CA, to properly deal with his own secure key, and that browsers hate it; but who cares about that part.

I trust the GnuPG set of tools, and I have so for quite sometime. On the opposite side of things I have witnessed a ton of CA hacks in recent years...

Post reply on HN