5 ms·

There's a problem somewhere in the system of open source and the people who use it, and everyone above me provided many examples of dysfunction. It's dysfuncti

There's a problem somewhere in the system of open source and the people who use it, and everyone above me provided many examples of dysfunction. It's dysfunction of a system with a very unclear reward framework, primarily centered around curiosity, pride, and drive. Developers want to build something they consider good; often they want to build something that others will find good and use, and there's intrinsic value and joy in that for them: not all developers are selfish, many do it for others. Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there; users who are programmers both demand more goodness and contribute of their own accord, making a kind of trade in kind. Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect, and it could be seen as helpful or at least informative to give the creators an idea of how this pridefully created thing could be made better and help more people. This is natural. No one owes anyone anything; this is all just unavoidable human behavior and psychology. It is not a particular group or person's fault that this convoluted system is not effective. But the wise will look beyond the individual needs and wants of the actors and help find ways to improve how the Open Source paradigm—the system itself—can be improved.

jdoliner 10y ago
Admittedly my response is another extreme from the parent comment. I run an open-source project and certainly don't have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward it. Although I also run a company behind that project and do get paid for some small subset of the work I do on the project; it'd be a lot harder to maintain that attitude if I didn't. I don't think open-source is perfect, it could be better and in my opinion is constantly improving. I disagree quite a bit with your characterization here though. You talk about there being a problem somewhere in open source and how it's not any particular persons fault that this convoluted system is not effective... what on earth is your definition of "effective" that it's failing to meet? You mention how "Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there" that sounds pretty effective to me. Consider some concrete examples here: - Linux, cornerstone of the web used by millions would have cost several billion dollars to build in a non open-source way. - Android, used on millions of phones because it's open source and others can modify it. - Chrome and firefox - Every programming language Believe it or not these projects didn't succeed despite the fact that they're open-source, they succeed very much because of it. So yeah, let's all grab the dick to the left and pretend that open-source is some broken paradigm that doesn't produce results because some new project doesn't have nice enough documentation. > Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect Some projects will care about these types of users, many won't. That's just the reality of software and there's no obligation to include everyone. Talk to an illiterate person and they'll tell you all about how ineffective the publishing industry is. That doesn't mean publishing should change.
- couchand 10y ago
  Maybe it's useful to point out here that: - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. I wholly agree with your sentiment, that open source projects work very hard and get little credit. I'd expect the GP agrees as well. Could you be a bit more generous to the author of the comment you responded to? Your point really lines up quite well with theirs, if you spend a few moments considering them.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    > - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. If you've actually tried using Chromium then you realize that this distinction doesn't make much sense. Chrome IS Chromium + Netflix + Flash + updater/Omaha + flashier logo. > - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. > - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap).
    - flukus 10y ago
      > Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. It's open source by the most limited definition possible. Google throw the source code over the fence occasionally.
    - 10y ago

jdoliner 10y ago

Admittedly my response is another extreme from the parent comment. I run an open-source project and certainly don't have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward it. Although I also run a company behind that project and do get paid for some small subset of the work I do on the project; it'd be a lot harder to maintain that attitude if I didn't. I don't think open-source is perfect, it could be better and in my opinion is constantly improving. I disagree quite a bit with your characterization here though. You talk about there being a problem somewhere in open source and how it's not any particular persons fault that this convoluted system is not effective... what on earth is your definition of "effective" that it's failing to meet? You mention how "Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there" that sounds pretty effective to me. Consider some concrete examples here: - Linux, cornerstone of the web used by millions would have cost several billion dollars to build in a non open-source way. - Android, used on millions of phones because it's open source and others can modify it. - Chrome and firefox - Every programming language Believe it or not these projects didn't succeed despite the fact that they're open-source, they succeed very much because of it. So yeah, let's all grab the dick to the left and pretend that open-source is some broken paradigm that doesn't produce results because some new project doesn't have nice enough documentation. > Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect Some projects will care about these types of users, many won't. That's just the reality of software and there's no obligation to include everyone. Talk to an illiterate person and they'll tell you all about how ineffective the publishing industry is. That doesn't mean publishing should change.

couchand 10y ago
Maybe it's useful to point out here that: - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. I wholly agree with your sentiment, that open source projects work very hard and get little credit. I'd expect the GP agrees as well. Could you be a bit more generous to the author of the comment you responded to? Your point really lines up quite well with theirs, if you spend a few moments considering them.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  > - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. If you've actually tried using Chromium then you realize that this distinction doesn't make much sense. Chrome IS Chromium + Netflix + Flash + updater/Omaha + flashier logo. > - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. > - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. As you said yourself, your claims are out-of-date. AFAIK, the only three remaining language implementations that matter today that are not open source would be Oracle Java (very close to OpenJDK), Apple's LLVM form (naturally very close to real LLVM), and Microsoft's C++ compiler (AFAIK generally considered to be crap).
  - flukus 10y ago
    > Android itself is open source (AOSP) and is very much a usable system without Play Services. It's open source by the most limited definition possible. Google throw the source code over the fence occasionally.
  - 10y ago