Live data from Hacker News

Open Source is one person

opensourcesecurity.io

111–120 of 184 posts

Re: Open Source is one person

#111

Has anyone seen any stats on what happens to a single maintainer project when said person is hit by a bus (or meets some other demise)? With that many data points, there should be enough of them by now to study it. Is the project taken over by another, single developer? Is it replaced by a similar project? Does it just go away?

I don't know about any broader statistics, but in my personal experience, I see all three of those. I think it's mostly a function of how large the user base is, how complicated the code base is, and whether or not there are any substitutes.

Re: Open Source is one person

#112
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, but the problem here was the deletion of the module, not the disappearance of the maintainer. in the later case the module would have remained, and if it would stop to work because of some incompatibility in a future js, people would replace it

You could also imagine leftpad was using some security compromised library (eg log4j). If the project is of moderate complexity and there is nobody behind the wheel to maintain it, what happens to the ecosystem?

basically, my rule of thumb is that i have to be prepared to take over and maintain any dependency that i use. it's all part of my code. if i am not prepared to do that then i better avoid pulling in the dependency in the first place.

the leftpad example, as it happened, was not a maintainer issue. had the maintainer just stopped working on it, replacing leftpad would have been a no brainer for anyone taking their project seriously. deleting leftpad was deliberate sabotage by the maintainer, even if he may not have predicted the consequences.

i dare say that the leftpad incident would not have affected me because i never deploy live depending on remote resources. everything needed to deploy is cached, and the only time leftpad disappearance would have affected me is when setting up a new project, at which point the failure to build would be an oops, there is a bug, we need to fix it kind of situation.

i don't rely on others such that if they don't do their work my house would come crashing down. if that happens, then that's on me. i rely on things that have been proven to be stable. a maintainer disappearing does not affect the current stability of any of my systems. it only affects future upgrades, and i can deal with those.

even security issues don't necessarily depend on the maintainer such that only the maintainer could fix them. that's the whole point of FOSS, that anyone can fix issues if necessary. in the worst case someone out there would work on a patch to fix the log4j issue, or, remove it as a dependency. if the issue is critical enough for me, then that someone might even be myself.

Re: Open Source is one person

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constitutional democracies with a free market have had a long run so far. We shall see if they last.

Curious how we're defining "democracy" and "free market" with this one. I wonder how countries with a pure democracy and an actually free market compare to the republic and regulated market we have in the US.

The US is a constitutional democracy with a free market and I consider it successful.

The definitions of these words can be the predominant use of these words in the English language. But if you want "constitutional democracy" here use this: https://civiced.org/lesson-plans/constitutional-democracy

And for free market here, use this: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

People frequently misunderstand "constitutional democracy" as being substantially different from "republic" but that's usually an ESL error that can be fixed quickly.

Re: Open Source is one person

#114
"Open source, the thing that drives the world, the thing Harvard says has an economic value of 8.8 trillion dollars (also a big number)."

Yeah, but the maintainer almost never sees anything from it. And most of the people cannot monetize oss based projects, because they don't have the expertise for it.

OSS is the biggest farce ever. Same when people say patents are evil. Ridiculous. A handful of people spoon fed this universal bullshite to people and they believed it.

Remember people that proper governments plan tens of years ahead. In this context, OSS was first, so AI systems would have ample source code to be trained on.

Re: Open Source is one person

#115

[Relevant xkcd.]( https://xkcd.com/2347/ ) It's interesting to see the periodic rediscovery of "capitalism + technology relies on unpaid, voluntary labour", or as the author puts it, "Open source, the thing that drives the world, the thing Harvard says has an economic value of 8.8 trillion dollars". The one flaw that I see in the author's analysis though is that they don't seem to account for whether the packages acc…

> capitalism + technology relies on unpaid, voluntary labour

You are falling into the breadtube trap of faulting capitalism for a societal issue that has nothing to do with it. Did capitalism force people to have productive hobbies? Would you prefer a system, other than capitalism, that prevented people from having productive hobbies?

Often times this error relies on the assumption that capitalism is what's preventing us from having an "idealized" version of communism that I've heard aptly described as Gay Luxury Space Communism, where anyone can do anything they want and society just magically pays for it. The problem is that GLSC isn't real, we'd need ~infinite resources to do it.

I personally blame this problem on charities. This is the type of problem that charities and foundations should solve but there is no safeguard for charity money actually going to the charity's cause of action, instead the moment you create any kind of non profit it transforms into Non Profit (inc) and all the money it received goes to (1) professional non-profit people for the job of raising money and redistributing it, (2) shuffled to other non-profits, (3) thinly disguised political activism.

Re: Open Source is one person

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see a diligently researched episodic series, every episode covering the transition of a popular open-source library/tool/app/site from one maintainer to the next. And that's why I don't run Netflix.

I think this is in the realm of a YouTube series. I mean, what's stopping you from doing it?

Other than it being a lot of work?

Re: Open Source is one person

#117
post #110

Has anyone seen any stats on what happens to a single maintainer project when said person is hit by a bus (or meets some other demise)? With that many data points, there should be enough of them by now to study it. Is the project taken over by another, single developer? Is it replaced by a similar project? Does it just go away?

The ones that come to mind are - Hans Reiser, maintainer of ReiserFS. I think very few people use ReiserFS these days. - Ian Murdock, creator of the Debian distribution. Debian lives on, but the project was also set up specifically to distribute maintenance. - Jim Weirich, creator of the Rake build tool. I'm not a Rubyist so I don't know how it was affected, but I assume it's such a big part of Ruby other people took…

IMO, it has a lot to do with usage and the availability of alternatives. With ReiserFS, there were a lot of alternatives, both available at the time or announced shortly. While ReiserFS pioneered a lot of ideas, many of them showed up in alternatives fairly quickly. TempleOS is had a pretty limited user base.

I’ve seen many projects in the Clojure ecosystem get picked up and maintained by other folks. The key was always that the projects had an established user base of some notable size and something distinctive about them that made switching to other alternatives less desirable than continuing to push forward with a new and possibly more mundane maintainer and feature schedule. I’ve also seen a lot of “abandonware.”

So, it’s a bit of a mixed bag.

Re: Open Source is one person

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's one of those ideologies that looks good on paper, but falls apart, as soon as humans get added... Name an ideology where this doesn't happen.

Constitutional democracies with a free market have had a long run so far. We shall see if they last.

Yeah, someone should make one of those. Would be interesting to see how they compare to the current 'free market' 'democracies'.

Re: Open Source is one person

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious how we're defining "democracy" and "free market" with this one. I wonder how countries with a pure democracy and an actually free market compare to the republic and regulated market we have in the US.

The US is a constitutional democracy with a free market and I consider it successful. The definitions of these words can be the predominant use of these words in the English language. But if you want "constitutional democracy" here use this: https://civiced.org/lesson-plans/constitutional-democracy And for free market here, use this: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp People frequently misunderstand…

The vast majority of markets in the US are hardly free. Every single large company in the US is heavily government subsidized, market protectionism is rife, and regulatory capture and artificial moat-building is the norm. I think it's quite a stretch to day we have a free market. Maybe a 'free-er' market.

Re: Open Source is one person

#120

Has anyone seen any stats on what happens to a single maintainer project when said person is hit by a bus (or meets some other demise)? With that many data points, there should be enough of them by now to study it. Is the project taken over by another, single developer? Is it replaced by a similar project? Does it just go away?

It depends. More common than getting hit by a bus is that the maintainer loses interest, or doesn't have the time to put into it anymore. When that happens I've seen all of the following happen:

* Someone forks the project, and eventually the fork replaces the original

* Another, possibly new, project that fills the same niche becomes more popular, and eventually replaces most usages of the first project.

* The original maintainer hands off maintenance to someone else.

* People keep using it, even though it is no longer maintained, and maybe make their own forks to fix issues they have, but none of the forks really catch on

One of the strengths of OSS is that if the developer disappears, or goes rogue, or changes the license terms, someone can fork the project and keep it going. With proprietary software, if the company (or individual) who makes it disappears, or decides to discontinue it, or change the terms to something unacceptable, you are just out of luck. Hopefully, you can find a competing product that meets your needs.

Post reply on HN