Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The things nobody wants to pay for

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#81

Post by zeroonetwothree »

nly wrote: post #76
hammock wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Markets approximate an algorithm where you line up everyone who can do a job by willingness to do it, then pick the cheapest if someone is willing to pay that much. That's an auction, not a market. Markets are two sided, there are differentiated (multidimensional) offers and bids that are seeking to get matched. Much more complex

The difference is only one of time. At any given _instant_ in time there is a steady state where there is queue of people willing to buy and a queue of people willing to sell time. There are no market makers in the job market. What OP says is true

The job market is full of market makers. For example contractor companies, any business providing services, etc

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#82

Post by ThinkBeat »

I find it hard to understand that the head of Mozilla foundation is paid nearly $7 million for the important job to run the foundation.

Linus gets paid $1,5 million (from the Linux foundation).

I think given the central position and importance of Linus compared to the head of the Mozilla foundation seems a bit off.

A little while ago Linus announced that they had lost power at their home due to a large storm.

I was picturing large corporations sending in giant Tesla batteries and diesel generators and hooking it all up in hours. (free of charge of course). but as far as I know it did not happen.

It might have if he asked for it I suppose.

Linus seems like a most humble guy, given his celebrity status, his life's work and his high importance to the world.

(I do see things that he has several other income streams than just the Linux Foundation so that s good)

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#83

Post by WalterBright »

bxparks wrote: post #80

I must not be the first person to think that government sponsorship can play a positive role with funding and promoting critical software projects. Just as basic science research is funded by agencies such as the NSF, NIH, DARPA, DoD, and so on. Even the Arts have the NEA. Where is the National Institute of Critical Software? People working on software projects could apply for grants, which would be reviewed by a pan…

Open source software is doing just fine. The siren song of government intervention will not make it better.

> People working on software projects could apply for grants, which would be reviewed by a panel of peers and experts, then funded, and the impact of the software project can be reviewed.

That's the dream. The reality is that the money will get allocated according to politics and corruption. The money will come with strings attached, and a lot of extraneous bureaucratic requirements. An industry will spring up that is specialized in getting as much grant money as possible.

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#84

Post by madsbuch »

bxparks wrote: post #80

I must not be the first person to think that government sponsorship can play a positive role with funding and promoting critical software projects. Just as basic science research is funded by agencies such as the NSF, NIH, DARPA, DoD, and so on. Even the Arts have the NEA. Where is the National Institute of Critical Software? People working on software projects could apply for grants, which would be reviewed by a pan…

My impression was, that there was consensus that the bay area was build on public funds and institutions. My intuition is that it is only later, ie. within the past 30-40 years, that the US has adopted this antipathy towards governmental organisations.

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#85

Post by WalterBright »

jorvi wrote: post #30
roenxi wrote: post #4

Markets approximate an algorithm where you line up everyone who can do a job by willingness to do it, then pick the cheapest if someone is willing to pay that much. In the case of open source, that algorithm usually identifies volunteers. Sometimes it identifies businesses. Sometimes people come up with clever ways of funding projects (Red Hat the enterprise was genius from this perspective, they organised a solution…

> I suspect there does need to be a regular social renewal to resolve the tragedy of the commons problem. Wouldn’t the solution offered on LWN work great? Just excise a tax (well, I guess a licensing cost) for open source use to any corporation that is above x$ amounts of revenue. Make it a tiny percentage (0.1%?). 2022 revenue: - $400 billion, Apple - $200 billion, Microsoft - $120 billion, Meta - $80 billion, AWS $…

As always, we're just one tax increase away from utopia!

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#86

Post by Timber-6539 »

zeroCalories wrote: post #2

I don't know much about the Kernel or testing it, but I submitted one fix years ago that I ended up testing it manually, and that was enough for it to be accepted. I think that's just the culture, which might seem odd to some, but also I imagine it would make coordination almost impossible if they were sticklers for testing. I've also known companies to run full integration tests instead of using stuff like unit test…

> At this point I would be willing to pay a substantial amount for stuff to be clean, consistent, and "just work" on the desktop.

Which alternative exists today that comes even close to this described utopian product?

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#87

Post by detourdog »

ho_schi wrote: post #74
nox101 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple makes open source Swift, LLVM, Clang, WebKit, darwin. They already spend millions on open source. Google makes open source Android, Chromium, Go, Dart, Flutter, Lit, ANGLE, Dawn. They also spend millions on open source. Microsoft makes C#, F#, VSCode, Electron, Powershell, and further Microsoft is providing free hosting for probably 95% of all open source projects (github) as well as free CIs (github actions) a…

Looks like mixing somewhat open-source with free-software? Again. Remembers me of late 90ies. And the intentions. It is fine to care about individual requirements but not all target the common society. Flutter and Chrome (Blink) are mere exclusive Google projects, they just shall strength Android, ChromeOS and their cloud business. Same for Microsoft stuff, they add stuff which strength their cloud business - with Li…

Before AT&T was broken up it was illegal to connect a fax machine or any other unauthorized equipment on their network.

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#88

Post by sgift »

bxparks wrote: post #80

I must not be the first person to think that government sponsorship can play a positive role with funding and promoting critical software projects. Just as basic science research is funded by agencies such as the NSF, NIH, DARPA, DoD, and so on. Even the Arts have the NEA. Where is the National Institute of Critical Software? People working on software projects could apply for grants, which would be reviewed by a pan…

Germany has the https://www.sovereigntechfund.de, which does exactly that.

Re: The things nobody wants to pay for

#90

Post by r14c »

WalterBright wrote: post #83
bxparks wrote: post #80

I must not be the first person to think that government sponsorship can play a positive role with funding and promoting critical software projects. Just as basic science research is funded by agencies such as the NSF, NIH, DARPA, DoD, and so on. Even the Arts have the NEA. Where is the National Institute of Critical Software? People working on software projects could apply for grants, which would be reviewed by a pan…

Open source software is doing just fine. The siren song of government intervention will not make it better. > People working on software projects could apply for grants, which would be reviewed by a panel of peers and experts, then funded, and the impact of the software project can be reviewed. That's the dream. The reality is that the money will get allocated according to politics and corruption. The money will come…

If we recognize that the US government is corrupt, which I believe is a pretty universal sentiment among Americans, why aren't there any substantial anti-corruption movements?
Post reply on HN