From the article: "But hardly any founder, VC, or big tech employee was aware of the issue, even when they used or benefitted directly from these projects." I just can't wrap my mind around this. As a former "big tech employee" and current founder I am constantly cognizant of the free software that shapes my working day and every solution I implement. From kernels and userspace tools to compilers and interpreters to…
Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
61–70 of 117 posts
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#62Mozilla with it's hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue comes to mind as a steward of such a initiative. But they seem to have been spending the money in pursuing project without a chance to succeed like FirefoxOS and expensive office and perks. E.g. https://ryanseys.com/blog/summer-at-mozilla/ >Interns at Mozilla, myself included, are truly spoiled rotten. Competitive pay, free travel/housing, free snack…
What's wrong with offering good jobs and perks? That sort of stuff is necessary to hire strong.
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most open source infrastructure tools lack a business model to capture revenue from its users. Like youtube videographers? Who start off doing it for fun, and then later monetize it? That evidence shows you're wrong.
How do you monetize, say, OpenSSL?
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you monetize, say, OpenSSL?
Wasn't the purported reason why OpenSSL rotted that the developers were fully booked doing paid consulting and had no time to spend on maintenance? http://openssl.com/what.html
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most open source infrastructure tools lack a business model to capture revenue from its users. Like youtube videographers? Who start off doing it for fun, and then later monetize it? That evidence shows you're wrong.
How do you monetize, say, OpenSSL?
It works for ISC. Why wouldn't it work for OpenSSL?
Heck, it works for me (FreeRADIUS). Why wouldn't it work for OpenSSL?
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#66Mozilla with it's hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue comes to mind as a steward of such a initiative. But they seem to have been spending the money in pursuing project without a chance to succeed like FirefoxOS and expensive office and perks. E.g. https://ryanseys.com/blog/summer-at-mozilla/ >Interns at Mozilla, myself included, are truly spoiled rotten. Competitive pay, free travel/housing, free snack…
Also, at the margins, I tend to think that perks allow organizations to hire more cheaply than wage increases.
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#67Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record, I don't know who they are - I've seen them linked once before but I have no ties nor love for San Francisco and their work is very localized. So I don't particularly doubt their work but I literally just picked the top post on their front page. If they are doing phenomenal work, I'm not impressed :) And seeing as my previous post is predictably getting instant downvoted, I should also state that I rea…
I work at 18F, here's my hot take: It's been pretty well established that needlessly (male) gendered language makes people feel excluded. Actually, that's too nice. That kind of language excludes people. Period. It communicates that the speaker does not contemplate a non-male audience. I do not know about the communities that you moderate, but constantly assuming a male audience at a place like 18F is wrong factually…
[1] The point isn't that other governmental entities should be able to use "gov", though. Since English is not a universal language.
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#69The most surprising example of this for me is Socket.io (https://github.com/socketio/socket.io) - This is a hugely popular open source project; but it was never able to get funding on its own merit - To the VC world, it was always seen as a 'side project' of another startup - Not as a fundable project in its own right.
The archnemesis of open source infrastructure software are services. By funding services exclusively, VCs have been actively pushing the adoption of services to the detriment of open source... For example, instead of encouraging startups to run their own open source database engine (which is quite feasible), startups may be tempted to use a hosted database-as-a-service instead (because it was advertised to them). Instead of using an open source CMS and host it themselves, they will use a hosted as-a-service solution (even though it's more expensive and often doesn't make sense for this startup economically). Instead of doing their own performance monitoring for their app (using an open source tool), they will use a service instead.
Not so long ago, the 'as-a-service' companies which did well were the ones which had roots in open source and actually did a lot of OSS work themselves (E.g. Wordpress, Red Hat). Now you have a lot of as-a-service startups which came out of nowhere, raised a boatload of VC funding and are stealing all the limelight away from smaller OSS (pioneering) projects who have been working towards a specific vision for many years.
Re: Open-source infrastructure is not venture-backable
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Open source projects need donations in talented engineer time, not in money. As a infra provider to many open source projects, I have a very solid way of converting money into engineer time: I hire and train them.
Sounds right to me, I was talking more about Patreon or bounty type methods of converting money to engineer time. Since you have the experience I am very curious about one aspect of this, does the fact that some fellow contributors are paid have a noticeable effect on volunteer contributors. As in "Why would I do this for free when Alex gets paid?" or "Fuck this, I'll let the paid guys do this annoying part" or even…
I realize now that we're talking about different meanings of the term infrastructure. My organization offers co-location and hosting services to a variety of open source projects. You can think of us as sysadmin to the open source community. And for all the talk about funding developer time, discussion about the operations side is notoriously quiet. There's a few good actors that help us out, and we're trying to raise awareness of the issue.
Within our org, we try to contribute to open source as we go, and we have a software development team, but we're not paying people to write software for specific external projects. AFAIK, nobody is demotivated by our existence. You just don't see a lot of volunteers to get paged in the middle of the night when the website is down.
The open source software we fund development of is largely to suit our operations team needs. They're not the sort of software projects you'd expect people to volunteer for, which is why we allocated student developers to start them. It's hard to separate the compensation effects on volunteers from the general 'I don't run this software' effects, and since we didn't inject money into existing projects, there's no debates about the inequity.
There's another unstated funding challenge: if you want to maximize value your money brings to open source, you want to find someone who can escalate their contribution. If you assume the Steve Hansons of OSS are already spending all their time contributing, handing them money supports the status quo, but handing money to students who would otherwise be flipping burgers brings new faces, and additional effort to projects. In a sense, it matters whether your charitable goal is to reward lifetime contributions, or to gift the community better software, and in small ways these can be contradictory. Especially if continued funding relies on demonstrating return on the gifts, merely perpetuating the status quo is a problem.
> I'd also be interested in how you'd feel having a donation of skilled engineer 20% time compared to money to hire someone less experienced but full-time.
So our model is to hire student employees. They're cheap, and we can be flexible around their schedules in ways other potential employers cannot. We participate in GSoC, and are open to contributions, but generally speaking what we develop is not relevant for home use. On the operations side of things, we participate in the Chef ecosystem, but there's a level of access and such that open source infra teams prefer to control access to. Do you want to publish what exact version of nginx you're running?