71–80 of 173 posts
Due to the sheer number of applicants, recruiters are only interested in the ones that are truly passionate about coding - exemplified by OSS involvement or side projects.
I'm not saying that it is right, but it does give the much needed exposure to junior talents in order to foster their growth.
It isn't so much that companies are unfairly using others' work. It's that if you're going to use an open source tool in your business's codebase, you'll inevitably need support, upgrades, and bug-fixes, which translates into you putting pressure on the maintainers to do more work. By all means, use those people's previous work to put something amazing out into the world quickly. However, when you inevitably need hel…
Something I never understood is why don't more maintainers just post the rate at which they'd be willing to do the work other people want? I suspect very few open source maintainers are doing so well financially that there's NO rate they would accept to perform other people's requests for their own project. Whatever number it would take to motivate you to do the work, just put it out there. Aside from the fact that y…
I think it also can be difficult to mix volunteer stuff with money. Posting in a bug tracker that multiple people work from which anyone can take on a bug from, that you will do it for $x, can make it feel like you're using a community resource to spam your business. There's probably other places where that type of advertisement is ok, but it ads an extra element of difficulty in doing these sorts of things.
> “I couldn't grab dinner with someone after work,” he says, because he felt like he'd be letting users down: I shouldn't be out enjoying myself. I should be working on Bootstrap! That's an attitude problem on the part of the developer. He shouldn't feel guilty for providing insufficient free support.
It's easy for you to say "he shouldn't feel that way." But it's a different thing to be in the position yourself of having hundreds of thousands of people depending solely on you to fix a problem (even to just review and merge). The pressure is real, and there aren't a lot of healthy outlets to relieve that pressure.
They chose to depend solely on me. They, and not I, are responsible for their decisions.
It isn't so much that companies are unfairly using others' work. It's that if you're going to use an open source tool in your business's codebase, you'll inevitably need support, upgrades, and bug-fixes, which translates into you putting pressure on the maintainers to do more work. By all means, use those people's previous work to put something amazing out into the world quickly. However, when you inevitably need hel…
I started using open source software and tools almost exactly 20 years ago in my career as an embedded software engineer. In exactly one case a company I worked for needed support from the developer, and in that case they hired the developer, ESR, to enhance his project, GPSd.
Perhaps it is different in other parts of the software world. From what I hear, the web dev folks like to shake and bake large collections of 3rd party libraries and tools. In my experience however, companies I've worked for have never placed the burden on open source devs to fix issues or add capabilities. They paid employees and contractors to do it, and generally, where appropriate, fed those contributions back to the community.
I do feel companies are not supportive enough of open source software, but I do not feel there is any burden placed on developers of said software other than those that they choose to take on themselves.
How much better the world would be if open source was fully funded by some of those tech billionaires whose fortunes were made by sitting on its shoulders.
How much would it cost to fund, say, all Github projects with 1000 stars or more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something I never understood is why don't more maintainers just post the rate at which they'd be willing to do the work other people want? I suspect very few open source maintainers are doing so well financially that there's NO rate they would accept to perform other people's requests for their own project. Whatever number it would take to motivate you to do the work, just put it out there. Aside from the fact that y…
Lots of people do this as a hobby - getting paid for a hobby is a very good way to make it not fun anymore. If its consistent $$$ that might be worth it. For a one shot thing, maybe not as much. I think it also can be difficult to mix volunteer stuff with money. Posting in a bug tracker that multiple people work from which anyone can take on a bug from, that you will do it for $x, can make it feel like you're using a…
Not sure why your downvoted, this is very true in my experience.
Open source has become yet another way for big tech companies to exploit laborers. If you are an independent developer working on an open source project without a copy-left license, you are a fool.
The language is a bit too extreme in my view. You release OSS knowing that anyone can come and pick it up. Even if they make a dime off your sweat. Pick your license, fine, but there's no reason for the devs to get upset about it because there's no lack of information out there. That being said, companies should kick down some love to the OSS projects they use. Especially big companies for which it's just a charitabl…
It definitely helps keep the lights on--and also helps justify the open source model to investors and the like. (Anyone reading this who has done such a deal, y'all rock.)
Open source has become yet another way for big tech companies to exploit laborers. If you are an independent developer working on an open source project without a copy-left license, you are a fool.
it sounds cynical, but before starting any code, I now ask myself "will a corporation profit from this labor?" and if so, I work on something else instead. I never have a shortage of ideas, so it's not a big deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The language is a bit too extreme in my view. You release OSS knowing that anyone can come and pick it up. Even if they make a dime off your sweat. Pick your license, fine, but there's no reason for the devs to get upset about it because there's no lack of information out there. That being said, companies should kick down some love to the OSS projects they use. Especially big companies for which it's just a charitabl…
At every company I've worked I've lobbied for us to make donations to open source projects we depend on. Every single time it quietly dies in legal. There must be a better way.
In a "when I'm king" kind of way I thought it would be great if tech leads had a modest budget for open source contributions (with a minimal amount of oversight to assure it wasn't being funneled off to their friends account).
It might also help with legal / finance to have these funds earmarked so that they only had to approve it in the beginning.
As someone who grew up in India, contributing to OSS has always been the best way for junior developers to get noticed by recruiters. Due to the sheer number of applicants, recruiters are only interested in the ones that are truly passionate about coding - exemplified by OSS involvement or side projects. I'm not saying that it is right, but it does give the much needed exposure to junior talents in order to foster th…
From a business standpoint, it makes sense as it shifts risk to the potential employee.
But like having unpaid interns, it biases the employment pool toward those who have extra money and time to work for no income.