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

“Open source” is not broken

nadh.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–259 of 259 posts

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#251

Post by wutbrodo »

caconym_ wrote: post #250
wutbrodo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you're incapable of making basic inferences and uncomfortable with thinking about distributions and error bars instead of forcing everything into artificial certainty. If, like many people, you need things shoved into an imaginary concrete, low-dimensional, binary box: "the type of person maintaining an OSS project can trivially make >$30/hr[1] on 10 hrs of contract work a week". If you still think this is to…

Insults and snark don't change the essential uselessness of your previous comment, though I can see how they might be a welcome distraction from it.

Yes, I'm sure that's very comforting for you to believe

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#252

Post by DarylZero »

wutbrodo wrote: post #241
DarylZero wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's already fairly trivial for a talented SWE to make UBI-level income working 10 hours a week by picking up software contracts here and there I wish that were true...

I'm not sure if we have misaligned expectations of how much income a reasonable UBI is likely to provide, or of how much income you can make contracting. The range of incomes I've seen from UBI proposals range from 10-20k/yr, with the high end generally applying to people with 2+ children. This is partially constrained by political reality, but politics aren't the only thing putting an implicit ceiling on the amount…

> You don't think it's plausible

Sure it's _plausible_. I even used to think that kind of thing was _possible_, long ago.

But I've come to the conclusion since that it's virtually impossible to "scale down" your income like that. And that you can't actually choose to accept lower pay to obtain more options (in software anyway), contrary to highly plausible economic theories.

Do you have any real world evidence other than that it sounds plausible?

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#253

Post by CRConrad »

DarylZero wrote: post #234
bityard wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free Software" generally refers specifically to GPL-licensed software, which one of many popular "open source" licenses. (GNU claims that their use of the word "Free" refers to freedom, not price.) This (IMO, weird) debate seems to be around all kinds of open source projects.

>"Free Software" generally refers specifically to GPL-licensed software, That is very incorrect. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Oh, come now. It may be in principle incorrect... But in practice, not very.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#254

Post by gutitout »

tw04 wrote: post #72

>If FOSS was broken, the internet as we know it today wouldn’t exist; the countless marvels of technology that we take for granted and techno-economies that thrive on them wouldn’t exist; I guess I just vehemently disagree. Nearly all of the early open-source software that made the internet possible was produced in universities. The only reason it was sustainable was because it was professors being paid by the univer…

I just feel like we can do something better than a this model. If there’s UBI than the next steps is also owning the production. That is a slippery slope. Consolidated power is not very Open Source.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#255

Post by jodrellblank »

KronisLV wrote: post #135
jodrellblank wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hey, what are your thoughts on the OP's argument, though? An ad-hom insult doesn't make an argument. OP isn't bashing open source, OP is bashing for-profit companies using it without contributing as an overall system, and OP's website isn't a for-profit company, so even the "OP is a dumb hypocrite" isn't only an insult, it's also wrong. > " There is no obligation or anything to encourage anyone to donate to the aut…

> An ad-hom insult doesn't make an argument. OP isn't bashing open source, OP is bashing for-profit companies using it without contributing as an overall system, and OP's website isn't a for-profit company, so even the "OP is a dumb hypocrite" isn't only an insult, it's also wrong. I do agree that ad hominems are bad and that OP is maybe conflating bringing attention to problems with open source with actually being o…

> "However, my more charitable interpretation of the original message would be along the lines of: "Open source seems to work, since you can post this criticism while utilizing a lot of open source technologies.""

The blog title is ""Open Source" is not broken" [edit I think the title changed since first reading];

> "however at the same time that implies that surely it's possible to somehow ingrain tipping or similar monetary actions into a culture to the point where it's not viewed as something outrageous by the denizens of said culture."

I don't find tipping outrageous, rather annoying in that it turns a simple transaction (food for money) into a one-way unclear social negotiation. There's no fixed amount of tip which means it varies in different places, which means it's possible to be rude without meaning to be rude - in a way that has a knock on effect on the waiter's lifestyle - and a decision weighing up how much is fair, without being so much it's uncomfortable to pay or so little it risks insult. (See also the Monty Python Life of Brian scene "won't haggle").

> "Are we incapable as humanity on a large scale to give money willingly to others, when we benefit from their work?"

Isn't that what "buying" is? A huge part of the world is devoted to this, paying money to others to benefit from their work. The question here is, if those others give their work for free, why then do they expect money and try to guilt people into giving them money, when there is a system whereby they could have asked for money in the first place?

> "Why not? If i wasn't ... X, Y, Z..."

Because if you aren't compelled to, you have plenty of other things to spend money on instead, apparently.

> "In short: It feels like open source developers should be paid, regardless of everything else. [...] i don't think open source has a future that's all that bright"

If nobody willingly wants to pay for a thing, then the author deserves to get paid for it? Why?

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#256

Post by pjmlp »

DarylZero wrote: post #249
pjmlp wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux only evolved beyond a hobby project, because IBM, Oracle, Compaq, Sun decided to cut down costs on their own UNIX (thus we are back again into corporations and their relation with FOSS), and yet many still have to reverse engineer hardware capabilities despite the big names involved in it. clang is the more recent example, it is becoming visible how it is lagging behind other compilers in C++20 support, not eve…

All of the commercial Unix vendors had as their fundamental technical goal user lock-in, while Linus had technical goal of performance + stability and maybe popularity.

Had IBM and others not jumped in, it wouldn't have mattered.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#257

Post by pjmlp »

ajross wrote: post #245
pjmlp wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux only evolved beyond a hobby project, because IBM, Oracle, Compaq, Sun decided to cut down costs on their own UNIX (thus we are back again into corporations and their relation with FOSS), and yet many still have to reverse engineer hardware capabilities despite the big names involved in it. clang is the more recent example, it is becoming visible how it is lagging behind other compilers in C++20 support, not eve…

Again, though, Linux needing that stuff[1] doesn't explain why BSD happened, which needed different stuff. clang needed other stuff still. But... they all got their stuff! It's a Jurassic Park point, really: life will find a way. Free software beat the world already, and it really strains logic to argue that that only happened because of a giant phonebook filled with special advantages for every individual piece. The…

Dominat where? We were all using Solaris, HP-UX and Aix boxes when real money was at play.

In fact, after university during the 1990's (where we initially were on DG/UX), it was only in 2003 that I first used GNU/Linux in production as CERN was moving away from Solaris into Linux and the first alpha releases of Scientific Linux started to become available on the institut.

And even there, most researchers were moving into Windows or OS X on their local workstations.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#258

Post by KronisLV »

jodrellblank wrote: post #255
KronisLV wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An ad-hom insult doesn't make an argument. OP isn't bashing open source, OP is bashing for-profit companies using it without contributing as an overall system, and OP's website isn't a for-profit company, so even the "OP is a dumb hypocrite" isn't only an insult, it's also wrong. I do agree that ad hominems are bad and that OP is maybe conflating bringing attention to problems with open source with actually being o…

> " However, my more charitable interpretation of the original message would be along the lines of: "Open source seems to work, since you can post this criticism while utilizing a lot of open source technologies." " The blog title is ""Open Source" is not broken" [edit I think the title changed since first reading]; > " however at the same time that implies that surely it's possible to somehow ingrain tipping or simi…

> Isn't that what "buying" is?

No, buying is a financial transaction, without which you will not acquire the goods that you're after. With open source, you'll just take the code, benefit from it (like large corpos that make millions through it), but aren't obligated to give any of that money to the authors.

While also not stealing, to me that sounds like exploitation on some level - the authors oftentimes seeing that as the status quo and being okay with it doesn't make it any less exploitative in my eyes.

> If nobody willingly wants to pay for a thing, then the author deserves to get paid for it? Why?

Because they're making the world a better place with the code that they create. If nobody wants to acknowledge that or willingly give them money for it (recognition also would be nice, but you can't eat recognition), then in my eyes the problem lies with society.

In a better society, people who do the work would be taken care of.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#259

Post by blooalien »

sidlls wrote: post #127
megous wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by broken, you mean what?

Can’t speak for the GP, but from my perspective: misaligned incentives (financial and technical), poor documentation, buggy important edge cases, toxic attitudes, egos, and so on. In short: it’s broken the same way any other development is, except it also includes the extreme end of economic exploitation.

I (obviously) can't speak for everyone, but in my own case "toxic attitudes" tend to be a symptom of abuse at the hands of a variety of far more "actually toxic" people. People who wrongfully expect people like me to be their free whipping-boy and tech-support "guru" despite them being a total stranger who's never done anything to benefit me. Then when I refuse to help an abusive and entitled piece of shit, I'm labeled as "toxic" and "gate-keeping" and any number of other (often outright hateful) things that I've never been, but am learning to be because I'm sick to death of unjustified and unjustifiable abuse. Want "toxic"? Keep abusing people who are literally only trying to do and share a little good in the world (for themselves, and others). See how things go when there's nobody left on the planet who even wants to do good anymore, because it's literally more trouble than it's worth to do anything positive or beneficial in this life. People love to bandy that "toxic" label around when speaking of the Linux community, but almost nobody ever considers that toxicity (in the rare cases that it's even actually real, and not totally made up in some Win-Troll's head) might have some actual cause behind it, such as y'know… bein' sick and tired of abuse at the hands of actually and truly toxic people.
Post reply on HN