31–40 of 118 posts
Could someone explain why "being on Github" is synonymous with "contributing to open source" in some circles? The Github projects are a very small part of the open source universe. You can easily build *BSD or LinuxFromScratch with a substantial userland without ever downloading anything from Github.
This is an interesting approach but not all talented developers partake in open source projects.
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
Further, the disadvantage you refer to is natural.
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
This is an interesting approach but not all talented developers partake in open source projects.
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
Surely you've got something you're willing to throw up on github? No one is saying it needs to be particularly useful to anyone else; just some actually code you wrote that people can look at.
That would be private code that's in Facebook. (I didn't work on Hive, Thrift or anything open source)
There are a lot of increasingly shrill remarks out there about how everyone should be doing open source projects in their 'spare time', so no-one has any excuse not to have a track record of FOSS contributions... frankly, it's bullshit.
I work in a closed-source shop (for some very good reasons, we can't open) and our devs do sterling work of a sophistication not seen in most projects, open or otherwise, solving a very difficult and rather open-ended algorithmic problem. On a good day, we get a lot of sophisticated work done.
Strangely, at the end of one of these good days, no one wants to go home and write a big fucking pile of code - we have girlfriends/wives/families that haven't seen us for 12 hours and probably aren't going to want to use the remaining hours (and typing time) to write MORE code. Even if that was a good idea - we are paid for full-time work here which means ideally we go home and relax, not flail away on endless side projects.
Could someone explain why "being on Github" is synonymous with "contributing to open source" in some circles? The Github projects are a very small part of the open source universe. You can easily build *BSD or LinuxFromScratch with a substantial userland without ever downloading anything from Github.
Speaking frankly, even on our slowest days, the number of open source commits being pushed to GitHub dwarfs other sites [1]. That's not to say OS development isn't happening elsewhere, but there happens to be a lot of it going on in one particular place these days. To your second point, you're right. I'd love to be able to convince older OS projects to move to GitHub. Some do[2], but it's an uphill battle. 1. https:/…
This puts developers in companies that commit to open source projects like Chromium to be at a significant advantage to those developing proprietary software. I understand where the author is coming from, but this is unfair for those who work on closed-source projects. Of course I have my own personal projects, but for most of them, I am not about release their source.
Look, I work on a lot of proprietary stuff as well, but even if Github didn't exist, we'd both be subject to the same "unfairness." Here's a job interview, circa 1981: Candidate 1: "I brought this fanfold printout of the source code for _____ I wrote with me, have a look. Candidate 2: "I can't show you any of the code, but trust me, it's good." Github merely drags that conversation forward from 1981 up to 2011. When…
The argument that this isn't fair to many programmers has also been going on at least for the last 30 years. Fair or not, it helps a lot in convincing an employer you're worth hiring.