101–110 of 357 posts
The pattern is familiar: * open source project * success * no monetary reward, maybe just cost * burnout * project abandoned This is why I don't try to make any open source projects - what's the gain? I'd only do it if it paid money. If people aren't willing to pay then I'm not willing to work.
Seeing a lot of posts like this. Open source is wonderful in its way, but it's really not sustainable to work on projects that make money for other people - including big commercial interests - when they don't help out in any fashion. I'm not just talking money or contributions. I'm talking about simple acknowledgement: "we use project X" - even privately. A open source library that I worked on at Intel (the Hypersca…
You said you worked on the library at Intel. Doesn’t that qualify as getting paid for your work?
That’s not the usual setup when developers talk about getting paid for their OSS contributions, usually off the clock, so its not clear what the lesson is here besides politics/resourcing at big co (which is a real but distinct problem).
This situation was supposed to be where OSS shines - instead of a dedicated team subject to the will of a single private corporation, a project should have multiple contributors, working on their employers’ time - then there is no central team to be disbanded.
Seeing a lot of posts like this. Open source is wonderful in its way, but it's really not sustainable to work on projects that make money for other people - including big commercial interests - when they don't help out in any fashion. I'm not just talking money or contributions. I'm talking about simple acknowledgement: "we use project X" - even privately. A open source library that I worked on at Intel (the Hypersca…
> there needs to be a way of getting paid You said you worked on the library at Intel . Doesn’t that qualify as getting paid for your work? That’s not the usual setup when developers talk about getting paid for their OSS contributions, usually off the clock, so its not clear what the lesson is here besides politics/resourcing at big co (which is a real but distinct problem). This situation was supposed to be where OS…
I don't say for this project but if you own a popular open-source project which is used by many companies it does make sense to think off it as your main business sometimes. I mean not just donate to me or follow me on patreon business, an actual business business. I think once you start making a lot of money from your project and can do it full-time it may help to bring some enthusiasm back (if it doesn't, well you…
monetising OSS is not as trivial as starting all these extra fronts and just hope it somehow pays off, people need to survive in the meantime success in terms of usage doesn't necessarily lead to success in these ancillary efforts - take for instance docz which is the project in question, its very main selling point is that it's simple enough you don't need support and it generates output without dependencies that is…
and yet there's mention of lots of people pressuring him to add new features or fix issues.
So i say, OSS developers should actually have a standard set of ultimatums for all projects ; namely, pay up, or don't get any support that the developer doesn't feel like providing.
Seeing a lot of posts like this. Open source is wonderful in its way, but it's really not sustainable to work on projects that make money for other people - including big commercial interests - when they don't help out in any fashion. I'm not just talking money or contributions. I'm talking about simple acknowledgement: "we use project X" - even privately. A open source library that I worked on at Intel (the Hypersca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about the insane entitlement that many devs have when it comes to open source? Getting bombarded with requests and angry emails from people who demand free support and bug fixes can burn anyone out. I think Github can be a positive force for change here. Redesign the UI to encourage donations, to encourage people to get involved in project work, to write less hostile issues, etc. If devs and designers can weaponi…
This! Several of my github repos now have a disclaimer that says "if this doesn't work, don't send me insulting emails" It's especially bad if a big company links to you from their tutorial or in their add-on catalogue because then some of their customers will feel like your open source is part of the commercial offering that they bought. So then you're forced to do open source support for entitled aholes and someone…
I had no opportunity to do it so far, but what is wrong with simply banning such people and closing tickets (with note that this issue is closed for rude behavior, not WONTFIXed)?
I would certainly not feel forced to support them.
Seeing a lot of posts like this. Open source is wonderful in its way, but it's really not sustainable to work on projects that make money for other people - including big commercial interests - when they don't help out in any fashion. I'm not just talking money or contributions. I'm talking about simple acknowledgement: "we use project X" - even privately. A open source library that I worked on at Intel (the Hypersca…
> there needs to be a way of getting paid You said you worked on the library at Intel . Doesn’t that qualify as getting paid for your work? That’s not the usual setup when developers talk about getting paid for their OSS contributions, usually off the clock, so its not clear what the lesson is here besides politics/resourcing at big co (which is a real but distinct problem). This situation was supposed to be where OS…
> ...People want a lot of things from you and your project, big companies are using the project and need a lot of things as well from it in order to keep their projects healthy, but in most of the cases this is a talk in just one way. There are more people interest in have things from you, than help! And this crashed me If they are all users of your open source software and are begging for features for free, ignore t…
We don't know how much pay/sponsorship was the issue here. It seems to me that the maintainer was simply overworked and slept very, very little. This is bearable for a certain amount of time but after that one really has to look after themselves, regardless of financial interests or a crash is inevitable.
i would say overwork and no/low pay are the same thing.
If you have a large amount of work being demanded of you by users/companies, then it's time to charge money for the time that would've taken. The charge should be big enough to replace your day job. If it's not, then don't do it, except for any fun bits that you would've already done.
Same sh*t. Same drama and human nature. So much drama about IP and copyright and abandoned mods. Point out that the source code is open. "Feel free to implement something yourself, the documentation is available." Crickets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, if the new project maintainers go against the community, but the community really need to use it, the community will just fork out a new path and move on. If the project is really open source.
Nobody forks anymore. Almost nobody contributes anymore. People have no idea that's it's mainly charity. And even then people demand, get angry, don't read any docs, etc, etc. Bigtech sometimes helps by employing these guys. What is really needed is a service, which does the moderation and filtering. Kind of like oss communication management as a service. For example by github.
It also means supporting other people and stepping up. It’s so few and far that’ll pay value for value.