Sorry everybody, I failed with you

Post by exciteabletom » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 2:55 AM UTC

leejoramo wrote: post #192

umvi wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think GitHub should really have a way for users of your repository to somehow illustrate that they're using your project. Well "stars" are kind of like that. Also the insights page tells you how many times your repo is being cloned per day, so that's one metric you can use to see how "used" your project is. You can also search GitHub for the name of your project and see how many other projects are cross referenci…

I am afraid that within GitHub I mostly use stars as a bookmark for projects I find interesting and may want to check out in the future. If I fork a project I am more likely to actually be using it, although in fact I have plenty of forks from simply evaluating or playing with a project

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

ergot_vacation wrote: post #233

glangdale wrote: post #98

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…

I've long believed "open source" is for suckers for exactly this reason. Literally being open source, having the code open for review, isn't a problem. But usually "Open Source" also ends up meaning free as in beer, for EVERYONE, whether you're some college student or a billion dollar company. The only sane, healthy, sustainable license is the "wacky" one you describe: individuals (and possibly even (very) small busi…

Post by chii » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 3:25 AM UTC

muyuu wrote: post #114

chii wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very main selling point is that it's simple enough you don't need support 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.

one-off changes don't make for a revenue stream, you'll find that people are prepared to ask for features a lot more often than they'd pay for them also, tenuous conditions are inherent to that model - typically you have a couple people paying a few dollars and asking for the moon every other day, and you already said "yes" doing that sort of thing solo is certainly not for everybody, the overlap of people good at pr…

Post by rodgerd » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

dabockster wrote: post #269

apocalypstyx wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only sane, healthy, sustainable license is the "wacky" one you describe: individuals (and possibly even (very) small businesses) can use it for free. Everyone else needs to pony up. It's absurd that a ton of the software allowing giant corporations to run day-to-day is not only created but ACTIVELY MAINTAINED by an individual or groups of individuals for free, as if they were running a soup kitchen. Microsoft,…

> This is neither free nor open by either the OSI or the FSF's definitions. In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" If someone isn't being paid for their work, then any version of OSS isn't really sustainable long term.

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #318

WalterBright wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of open source developers leverage their contributions into high paying jobs they never could have gotten otherwise.

I don't doubt it could help but these are pretty talented people in the first place. I'm not sure they need an OSS project to succeed, or that they would do any differently than if they hadn't.