Live data from Hacker News

Sorry everybody, I failed with you

github.com

321–330 of 357 posts

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of facets to open source contributions. One big facet is the whole itch-scratching thing. If you know longer itch, stop scratching. That's ok. Maybe when you stop scratching, it will start to itch again for you or for someone else. If nobody steps up, it just means it doesn't itch enough. Abandonware is not such a bad thing. It served its purpose for a season, then the world moved on. Nobody's out the…

There's also libraries that are simple enough that they just work fine without constant updates. I have numerous libraries that I use that haven't had commits pushed for 2+ years. This is the other aspect: burnout is so rampant because it feels like it never stops and you can come up for air.

Burnout is made worse when you take on too many complex interactions and dependencies.

OSS works best when it’s a small project that does a single thing and does it well, but doesn’t rely on too many upstream projects for its functionality.

As soon as the project tries to do too much, it virtually needs a committee to coordinate it all. If it relies on too many upstream dependencies, then the maintainer will be hammered with complaints that “this doesn’t work with version 1.45 of foolib… fix it!”.

But a project that just lives in its own little world, doing its own little job? It’s something you can just maintain and improve at your leisure.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#322
I think we need to stop seeing open-source development as a form of free-as-in-beer labor, and start seeing it as a form of professional empowerment.

Nothing -- nothing! -- stops you from forking my code and making the changes yourself. You don't need to ask me to make the changes for you; you are not helpless. I've already solved 99% of one of your problems, and now I am empowering you to solve yours with 1% of the effort.

Just because I release my code under an OSS license doesn't mean you're entitled to my time and attention. My labor is not free-as-in-beer, and I take a very dim view on wage theft. If you want me to care about your issues, you will pay me my consulting rate. If you harass me about it, I'll block you.

Framing OSS development as empowering developers I think would remove a lot of the toxicity from OSS. Being involved in OSS should be about improving your effectiveness, not working for free for entitled Internet strangers. You owe it to yourself and the OSS development community to demand that you be paid for your time.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#323
post #315
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you already said "yes" if you were only paid a few dollars, why would you say yes to it? I'm not suggesting that you accept any "donation" amount and agreeing to a blank cheque for features. I'm saying you ask for some 20-30k per feature request that takes approx. 1 month of work. And if the requesters of such feature can't pay this, then cannot afford to request (basically i'm using a contractor rate above, but yo…

there are very strong cultural factors preventing such billing model from catching up, on either side of the deal

I myself had something like this in mind decades ago, thinking of providing a web/platform/service to barter such deals, but it never made it past the design stage before I was convinced it was a fool's errand - and that was even before I started doing contract work

I'd be interested to listen if you can provide detailed real-world examples of how do you see this working

In this bit:

> I'm saying you ask for some 20-30k per feature request that takes approx. 1 month of work. And if the requesters of such feature can't pay this, then cannot afford to request (basically i'm using a contractor rate above, but you substitute the level of pay you intend to make).

how do you envision this negotiation taking place? coders, let alone younger ones and/or OSS-attracted ones, typically suck at this, on the following levels:

1- all work takes "a bit of effort" to "a weekend hackathon" to "two weeks™" - both on the client end, as technical challenges are often invisible to the client, and on the proud coder end who tends to overpromise a lot (combination of overconfidence, wanting to "give the best deal", and other psychological factors)

2- people are used to dark patterns and seeing concrete figures puts off a lot of people and has a strong impact on the perception of projects - also, the internet is worldwide and in most of the world a moderate pay will be seen as greedy or astronomical

3- judgement on whether the work is done, or ongoing, or satisfactory - this will always lead to some friction, and most people don't want to deal with it; coders gravitate to jobs where this shit work is done by someone else, typically on lower emoluments, leaving the higher rate for himself (we're usually a "he" let's face it)

From these, 1 is (roughly) the inner challenge, 2 is the outer challenge and 3 is the structural challenge. Perhaps 3 is the strongest of the 3, as it essentially boils down to the business model competing with a more traditional, tried-and-tested company/employee paradigm. Since a good coder commands a good pay these days, the traditional model needs to suck a lot to a lot of people before the coder (let alone the project lead coder or the CTO/CEO coder) is better off outside of "the system"

perhaps I should finish up some write-up and then open a discussion, but who'd read it heh

long story short, these OSS-with-tips arrangements will remain in the hobby/side-gig range for most people, except if you hit gold somehow in a superstar economy; I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#324

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…

Unwilligness to pay for developer tools or desktop software is what made me gave up and just focus on Apple, Google, and Microsoft platforms.

I rather work for ecosystems where customers see a value that developers keep their job.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Just like a couple of street musicians happen to hit gold, the large majority doesn't.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#326
post #324

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…

Unwilligness to pay for developer tools or desktop software is what made me gave up and just focus on Apple, Google, and Microsoft platforms. I rather work for ecosystems where customers see a value that developers keep their job.

Andy Gocke put it best, on Twitter:

"Developer tools seemed like a good industry to be in, "sell shovels in the gold rush" and all, but it turns out developers prefer to dig for gold with their teeth."

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#327

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'm curious. Is there a reason to not build in some sort of ping for the software being used? Essentially doing analytics for open source usage so you can monitor how many people use it? Obviously there are some potential privacy issues here, but adding it to the README and doing a single ping on use seems like not too bad a compromise to keeping open source projects alive. It won't be 100% accurate due to offline us…

Surprise telemetry is deeply unethical. Putting it in the README is borderline OK, I guess. However, even supposing it's OK, a "single ping on use" is only really feasible if the system has "main()" and some reasonably persistent usage. If you're a small tool - or a library, like we were, "single ping on use" might result in thousands of systems "beaconing" back to home base per hour.

For the area we were in (pattern matching is basically computer security-adjacent), this would have been equivalent to shipping malware in terms of sheer career-destroying potential.

Not everything is a long-running desktop app.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#328
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not the purpose of AGPL?

The purpose of AGPL is to have a bunch of people harass you about you daring to have the temerity of not letting them run their business on your code for free.

But isn’t it cathartic when you tell those people to fuck off?

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#329
post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Just like a couple of street musicians happen to hit gold, the large majority doesn't.

The implication is that the OSS contributor has to be good. The same with street musicians.

I once had the pleasure of encountering some street musicians that were very, very good. I bought their CD out of their suitcase. It remains one my favorite CDs. Pludo's "The Only Thing Certain Is The Future".

Sadly, they never made it.

The large majority of street musicians are worthy of a tip, but I'll pass on their CD.

P.S. It's a lot easier to make money as programmer than a musician. You don't have to be anywhere near the top 0.01% to have a good career.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "open source" is for suckers First time I've heard that on HN ever. This needs to be common knowledge so more people realize how valuable they really are.

"Opens source" isn't a business model.

At the end of the day, it boils down to a choice as to how you setlle the intellectual property rights which derive from your creative work. Either you restrict the use, sharing and altering of your work by others; or you give a limitless license and anyone is free to do whatever.

Putting your code out there for free redefines the relationship between you and the users of your code. And it does so at both sides at the same time. It's the latter part which usually tends to be forgotten.

As a developer, sharing your work under an open source license is not an obligation to provide premium support. Or any a support at all, for that matter. All you did was share your work, others are free to either pick it up and use it, or walk past and choose something else.

As a user, an open source license doesn't come with a warranty, nor does it imply that you are entitled to support from the maintainer. All you get from an open source license is the freedom to use, adapt and share the software under a similar license.

It means that maintainers of open source projects are well within their rights to say "No. I'm not going to do that." to whatever request you submit to them. Whether that's an issue queue or an e-mail.

When a maintainer receives a request to add a complex feature or fix a complex bug and the request starts with "We use your code at our business / company / organization..." then it's perfectly acceptable to reply with "I would love to. Please contact me at my e-mail address and I'll send you my offer." As a maintainer, open source still leaves you free to charge for any support people solicit with you. You're even free to differentiate between "this is what I'm willing to do in my spare time, this is what I'm willing to do for a price."

The big question, then, is: Why don't open source maintainers do this?

That's where the answer gets complex. For instance, the jump from side project to sustainable income is difficult. Not all projects would yield enough support / servicing work. And not all projects are interesting enough to turn into a full time job. Depending where you live, making a little extra income from a side project may even get taxed away, making it just not interesting to turn it into a side business.

So, why don't maintainers then just refuse largish questions if they can only work on a project in their spare time? I suppose that's the hard part: publish creative work means putting a part of yourself out there. When facing an audience, being able to take a step back from criticism and feedback is probably the hardest part to creative work. There's all sorts of rationalizations one makes to defend a perceived requirement or obligation to keep working on open source projects, even when it's to one's own detriment. Learning how to deal with that in a healthy manner takes time and experience.

Post reply on HN