This is one of the posts where I just can't go away without commenting. I will be always on the side of the open-source developer basically in any situation. BUT (of course there is "but") in the post about selling plugin (Why I'm Charging What I'm Charging) author stated that he is made decision based on the fact that he bought Mac for developing Apple Silicon support. I will not pretend that I read everything in both posts and even fully understand cross-platform part in the project BUT as Apple hater I will say that author could just drop Mac support as alternative. Again I don't know if author's project can run on Windows ARM and if he ever bought Project Volterra. So if Mac made you paywall your plugin than sell it to Mac users and leave Win\Linux open source.
I'm giving up on open source
101–110 of 209 posts
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#102[deleted]
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#103I 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.
It goes a bit beyond OSS; try doing anything important in life and you'll be a target sooner or later. Jealousy is a powerful force; ignorant mobs are powerful forces and there are a lot of evil opportunists in the mix. People really need to get a little more cynical at a young age. Everyone should be doing things because they think it is in their personal best interests. People can still be altruists, but it is impo…
Yeah, but on the other hand, when you start charging for something, people automatically feel entitled to expect the world from you. I'm not saying they don't already do that for people who donate their labor to a project, but I'm saying the abuse might get worse. They're now "paying customers."
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#104I maintain an OSS that is 10x smaller than the author of the post and I have experienced the same absurd community behavior. I feel bad for the state of open source [0] - even when Microsoft literally a couple of weeks ago pulled the "FIX THIS NOW" card on ffmpeg https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 [0] https://blog.tidelift.com/maintainer-burnout-is-real
We need a FUCK OFF OSS license: like the do-whatever-tf-you-want but with extra clauses telling people to FO. if they want bugfixes, improvements or features.
All the free software I had put out there is kind of like that. I don't care about the fame, glory or user count. I release something I built to scratch an itch just because someone else might find it useful. If you didn't like my code, tough luck, go write yours.
Edit: call it the FOOSS license, ha!
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#105Earlier 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…
The miscommunication here is a question of scale. $40 a month doesn't put a dent in your budget when you're paying six figure labor costs at the same interval.
That all being said, I have no intention of writing OSS for a living. I contribute to FOSS for fun only, and I set my own schedule outside my day job.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#106I maintain an OSS that is 10x smaller than the author of the post and I have experienced the same absurd community behavior. I feel bad for the state of open source [0] - even when Microsoft literally a couple of weeks ago pulled the "FIX THIS NOW" card on ffmpeg https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 [0] https://blog.tidelift.com/maintainer-burnout-is-real
It says something about the state of Microsoft that such a naive coder would be responsible for a critical bug in a "highly visible product".
> Hi, This is a high priority ticket and the FFmpeg version is currently used in a highly visible product in Microsoft. We have customers experience issues with Caption during Teams Live Event. Please help,
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#107I maintain an OSS that is 10x smaller than the author of the post and I have experienced the same absurd community behavior. I feel bad for the state of open source [0] - even when Microsoft literally a couple of weeks ago pulled the "FIX THIS NOW" card on ffmpeg https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 [0] https://blog.tidelift.com/maintainer-burnout-is-real
We need a FUCK OFF OSS license: like the do-whatever-tf-you-want but with extra clauses telling people to FO. if they want bugfixes, improvements or features. All the free software I had put out there is kind of like that. I don't care about the fame, glory or user count. I release something I built to scratch an itch just because someone else might find it useful. If you didn't like my code, tough luck, go write you…
the idea is good in principle but it's not good in practice - we're all grown ups at the end of the day and personally, I don't ask for money, I just ask for a little gratitude and help!
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#108For context, I started an open source project that is arguably 10x more popular than Nutjs (20k stars on github vs 2k). I also gave up on maintaining it, but others stepped in to take care of it so it's still running. The parallels between open source and bolshevism are interesting. I'm not a history expert, but this is just how it appears to me. - Contempt for property - Pitches itself as a movement by "the people",…
Open source is largely based on "property". Very few open source projects are in the public domain. The FOSS developers I know have a higher respect for those licenses than capitalist corporate users, who seem to treat FOSS licenses with contempt by not following all the terms.
Your lists of points seem also applicable to capitalism.
- ignore property rights if the fines are cheaper than the profits
- capitalism both enables people and greatly enriches the most powerful
- ask the Luddites about how to destroy the economics of production
- "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see
themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily
embarrassed millionaire." (famous quote derived from Steinbeck)Re: I'm giving up on open source
#109I'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…
> OSS also tends to attract, um, shall we say, those who are likely to be uncomplimentary.
I disagree. I maintain a reasonably popular project (25K stars on GitHub) and a large majority of people reporting bugs / asking for features are polite and not entitled. Of course, those exceptions sting overproportionally.
Re: I'm giving up on open source
#110You 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…
> You do need to develop a very thick skin in OSS to be able to thrive. Yet, users or submitters of open-source must be coddled? One of the chief complaints about Linus Torvolds is his blunt communication style in response to poor quality code. So OSS developers must be able to accept very harsh critism or even insults but always be kind to users who offer nothing in return?
Torvalds was unnecessarily unrespectful. He fixed this.
Now, he is still to the point and harsh when needed, but in a respectful way. That works and it's still as effective, if not better (because, it turns out, you are more eager to take something in account if it's not insulting you).
> So OSS developers must be able to accept very harsh critism or even insults but always be kind to users who offer nothing in return?
For one's own sake, yes, it's better to be able to take the messages one receives. And no, this doesn't grant you the permission to be sloppy and not careful when communicating with other human beings.
Now of course if someone insulted you, you'd be forgiven to not be overly nice with this person. Though avoiding to lower yourself to this person's level is the better option if you can help it.
I personally find that someone who insulted someone else who responded with class looks particularly bad.