“The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#2To the contrary, the fact that open source software is more successful now than it has ever been suggests the system is working well.
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#3Why is a single tweet that doesn't say anything of substance getting upvoted? What value are people getting out of this?
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#4Why is a single tweet that doesn't say anything of substance getting upvoted? What value are people getting out of this?
Possibly because of the followup discussion thread?
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#5Why is a single tweet that doesn't say anything of substance getting upvoted? What value are people getting out of this?
controversial title --> more "hacker" "news" upvotes
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#6Why is a single tweet that doesn't say anything of substance getting upvoted? What value are people getting out of this?
Upvoters want to read and or partake in the discussion that will go with it.
I'd wager that for many of the users here, the discussions are routinely far more valuable than the linked content. The linked content and its title are merely the spark to go from. You'll often see people admit in the comment threads that they skip reading the linked content and go right to the comments.
It means the title: the way OSS is funded today is not sustainable - is of high interest, people want to have that conversation.
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#7On the other hand, I think it's kinda nice that open source exists outside of our capitalist economy. I don't think you can really argue that it isn't working - lots of people are fine with contributing to open source because they enjoy writing code that helps more than just them, just that maybe it would be nice if more of this labor was paid for.
We have to be very careful trying to extract money out of working on open source, I wouldn't want to see the same kind of perversion of incentives that causes large enterprise companies to produce absolutely godawful software come to open source projects too. (See Linus' many famous rants against commercial contributors trying to push crap into Linux for examples of this).
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#8Why is a single tweet that doesn't say anything of substance getting upvoted? What value are people getting out of this?
"This thing is unsustainable but will go on indefinitely without a change"
This does/does not have substance kind of like a moebius strip does/does not have two sides.
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#9I’m not sure if he’s completely serious about the roads analogy. IMO roads are funded like OSS, but in OSS we just skip the whole elected officials part and go straight to oligarchy.
In other terms the oligarchs (Google, the auto industry) put money into projects that they directly benefit them (k8s, roads) while sidelining popular projects that don’t (public transit, $your_favorite_OSS).
I don’t really see the advantage of moving the gatekeepers from a set of corporate engineers to an “elected” group of people who will likely be completely made up of people who work at those same corporate jobs who have the time to do OSS politics.
Maybe there is another way, but this post is really critical of the “roads” analogy.
Re: “The way OSS is funded today is not sustainable”
#10Why is a single tweet that doesn't say anything of substance getting upvoted? What value are people getting out of this?
Upvoters want to read and or partake in the discussion that will go with it. I'd wager that for many of the users here, the discussions are routinely far more valuable than the linked content. The linked content and its title are merely the spark to go from. You'll often see people admit in the comment threads that they skip reading the linked content and go right to the comments. It means the title: the way OSS is f…
I'll chime in as a data point - I generally find the comment section on hacker news to be of way more value than most articles too.