10 ms·

People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project. It's very competitive. You're competing not just with other open source projec

People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project. It's very competitive. You're competing not just with other open source projects but also with SaaS solutions from well-funded companies; and you have to compete with a $0 marketing budget. Also, if the project does become popular eventually (which is very unlikely), maintenance is a lot of work. To make matters worse, there is a general tendency that if things go wrong, the community will blame you but if things go well, you get almost no credit. Even if your project has several thousands of stars on GitHub, it means nothing financially. Most of these OSS authors can't afford to quit their day job even though their project may be generating millions of dollars of value for other people. Money is an important topic to open source authors because after a decade of working for free during nights and weekends, most of them would love to be able to afford to quit their day jobs to focus exclusively on their projects but they can't do that; they're tired but they have to keep soldiering on with the 80+ hour work week. Being an open source author is not a wise life decision right now. I think that any business innovation which helps keep open source projects going should be welcome.

Benjammer 8y ago
>after a decade of working for free during nights and weekends Think I spotted the problem. This whole thing feels like someone martyring themselves for a cause and being recognized as a hero, but then complaining that martyrs are heroes and we should be _supporting_ our heroes and not forcing them to be martyrs. But that was the whole point to begin with and why there was any opportunity for recognition at all. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
- m3mpp 8y ago
  > You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not that simple, what would be this industry without Linux, without the FSF, without the BSD network stack (that is in all the macs...) The growth of our industry, and probably of a good chunk of the whole economy for the last 10 years has a lot to do with those people working during nights and week-ends imo.
  - monochromatic 8y ago
    And? People are welcome not to write OSS if it’s a burden.
    - m3mpp 8y ago
      For sure, but if they benefit from it and don't give anything back, money or time, they're just freeloaders, as simple as that. EDIT: people or corporations, same thing.
      - taneq 8y ago
        So is the software being given away or are there strings attached?
    - zapita 8y ago
      No they’re not, because it’s increasingly expected of developers to have a track record of open-source contributions if they want to move up into the higher tiers of their profession. That amplifies inequalities in the field between: 1) the top 1% employees in the field who have the luxury to invest unpaid time, and the social clout to make their projects more successful, or to join more successful projects. (example: how much more likely are you to be a key contributor to Kubernetes if you are, or were at some point, employed by Google?); 2) the other 99% who cannot afford to invest the spare time, and do not benefit from the social proximity to successful open-source contributors (and success in open-source is as much about social proximity today than technical skills, hopefully we can change that in the future); 3) The corporations who benefit financially from open-source, sometimes enormously, with very little pressure to contribute back because of the aforementioned social pressure on individuals to contribute on their free time. The expectations are so low that even modest corporate contributions (joining or starting a foundation, hiring a few engineers, paying for a conference) will be hailed as generous and benevolent, because the bar is so incredibly low.
      - hnaccy 8y ago
        >it’s increasingly expected of developers to have a track record of open-source contributions if they want to move up into the higher tiers of their profession. Is it really? Of the people I know who have had excellent career paths in software/computing none have a track record of open source contributions.
- oceanghost 8y ago
  In "Bullshit Jobs: A Theory" the author has a really interesting theory of how open source and employment in software interact. His model was, that programmers are expected to donate their time to OSS creating core components, in order to get jobs integrating those core components into commercial systems. When you think about the issue like that, it makes a lot of sense, but its a terrible deal for the programmer.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    A part of me thinks open source is this epic joke and conspiracy played on programmers. Some cabal of business owners somehow managed to convince us that it's admirable and ideal if we build all this software infrastructure for free so they could profit off of it. And that's pretty much what is happening and things like OpenSSL show how terrible it is.
    - oceanghost 8y ago
      You're not really wrong, there is an epic conspiracy. Ours is the only profession I can think of that's expected to work slave hours for no additional compensation. At least when a lawyer works 80 hour weeks, he might make partner someday. Nobody else does their job on weekends for free.
      - jplayer01 8y ago
        Exactly. We'd all be better off if more people worked for free working as medics, nurses and doctors, saving lives, but nobody seriously expects them to do any of that work with zero compensation. But somehow it's okay for programmers to build the tech the entire world depends on and get nothing in return, and programmers defend it! In a Star Trek utopia, that idealism would be great, but we live in a world where people are exploited wherever possible to ensure endless profit.
- jfabre 8y ago
  I think the main reason people do OSS is because they can work on a project they chose and that it's an interesting technical challenge for them. Giving the work for free and being recognized for it is what they're also after, but I don't think anyone would refuse to get paid doing the same thing.
- jondubois 8y ago
  After you work really hard for a very long time, physiologically, your brain expects some kind of reward. Then you remember that there was never any reward and you wonder why you did this to yourself. Lol.
- plurgid 8y ago
  Right all this talk of "what it takes to be a success in OSS" ... programma please! "Success" in the OSS world is putting code out that others can use. Either they find it useful, or they don't. If they don't that's not failure. That's ... someone else put out something better, or that your user community is small or just not out there. OSS is not a business model. It's a SHARING model. God it's just like the music scene these days. Did you get into it for the Art? Cool you're gonna be ok. Did you get into it wanting to be a rock star? Might as well buy a lottery ticket. Your chances are better. OSS success is providing something of use to a community that contributes back to it. Yeah, maybe you can find a way to make a nickel off that, but that's not what it's FOR. It's not a marketplace, it's a public library. This celebrity/glamor seeking is so apparent on github. Every single project's readme.md reads like marketing copy these days. Just like the music scene again. Reminds me of the 90's when the record labels still had money and steamrolled the alternative scene looking for a cash grab.
  - staticassertion 8y ago
    What if I want to open source my code so that people can use it, but also I want to make money from it? Why is that nothing something we should reconcile? Why is that not "sharing"?
    - ricardobeat 8y ago
      Then find a way to make money of it? These are not exclusive.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      Making software open source doesn't mean you can't make money from it. Depending on the details of what you build, who uses it, how you license it, etc., it may be harder to make money from it than if you made it proprietary. But that certainly isn't something you can just take as a given. You also can't take it as a given that the project would make money if it was closed source either. Maybe you made something nobody needs. Or they need it, but there are better alternatives out there (possibly some that are Open Source). Who's to say? Somebody yesterday (maybe DannyBee, not sure) made a very insightful comment in saying that sometimes the value created by Open Source software is created exactly because it's Open Source. Anyway, you can always charge for software even if the code is Open Source. You can stick it on the web and make it a SaaS app, or you can make the source available but charge to download binaries (ala JBoss back in the day), or you can make source and binaries freely available and sell subscriptions, etc. Aaah, wait, I know, you're asking "who would buy a subscription for something that's free to download?" Companies. Companies will, for things that are mission critical, because they typically need for their to be a contractual relationship (eg, somebody to sue) in place. Or you have a manager who needs to spend her budget or lose it, and she understands that you need to make a profit in order to stay alive and keep enhancing the software. Etc., etc, yadda, yadda, ad infinitum. My point is, it's not as simple as "Oh, I made this Open Source, so there's no way to profit from it".
mhd 8y ago
> People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project. It's very competitive. In the web space maybe. The desktop and CLI sector are much more relaxed.
jaredklewis 8y ago
I think everything you said is also true of musicians, artists, actors, writers, athletes, game developers, youtubers, and twitch streamers, just to name a few. The problem for all of these categories is that lots of people want to do the job. There is basically an unlimited supply of people that like to write novels, make programming languages, play soccer, or make video games. That makes it a buyers market. "What? This iPhone game is $0.99? No way. I'll play one of the million free iPhone games instead." For every singer, basketball player, or instagram personality that hits the big time, there are thousands that never made a dollar doing it. For better or worse, authoring an open source library is one of those things that there is no shortage of people willing to do, so I am not optimistic about use of "business innovations" to solve this problem. If those innovations are in any way non-consumer friendly, consumers are just going to choose a different open source tool/project.
- spullara 8y ago
  In none of the cases you mention is the author's work used to make millions of dollars with nothing going to the artist. This comparison is nonsense.
  - jaredklewis 8y ago
    Sure, I agree that consumers use video games, for example, for personal enjoyment, whereas cloud providers use OSS to make millions. But that difference does not change the market dynamics in any way. In both cases, the effects of a near unlimited supply of creators is having the same effect, regardless of how their creations get used. Perhaps the difference changes the ethics of the situation, I don't know, but I remain equally skeptical of "business innovations" being able to help the OSS creators as I am "business innovations" being able to help aspiring rock stars and shortstops.
    - x0x0 8y ago
      Except games either (1) are pay-per-purchase, or (2) are free-to-play and subsidized by whales. In both cases, high usage games tend to make enough to justify the economics of continued support and development. That's almost exactly the opposite of very popular OSS software, which generates an endless wave of free users. And generally no whales. And high demands for bug fixes. And serious temper tantrums (this has happened to me too) when you explain to users of your free software that you owe them exactly fuck. and. all. and won't be hopping-to in order to fix something for them.
sheetjs 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with open source as long as you are honest to yourself regarding the intentions. If you go into open source expecting to get paid, then you're gonna have a bad time. If you go into open source for the accolades, then you're gonna have a bad time. If you go into open source with a true desire to improve the state of the art, then you might be able to succeed. We (https://sheetjs.com https://sheetjs.com, our most popular library https://github.com/SheetJS/js-xlsx https://github.com/SheetJS/js-xlsx has over 11K GitHub stars) combat that by intentionally removing our names and egos from the equation. We are happy to see others use our open source code in their applications, and are constantly surprised when high-profile projects like React end up using our code (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v16.0.0/src/renderers/shared/utils/adler32.js#L17 https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v16.0.0/src/renderers...). Our intentions are clear: the open source offerings give us a test surface far larger than any proprietary solution, and for that we are extremely satisfied with the results.
- raquo 8y ago
  If you want to tell everyone else that they should be in OSS just for advancing the state of the art, you might want to reconcile that with SheetJS earning money from non-OSS extensions and consulting services, because that discrepancy certainly doesn't look very honest of you.
  - sheetjs 8y ago
    Your interpretation is far from the original point "There's nothing wrong with open source as long as you are honest to yourself regarding the intentions." If you're entering OSS to make money, it's incumbent upon you to find a business model. Many open source developers start with intentions like "advancing the state of the art" and over time become disappointed because others build businesses and profit off of their creations. The intention at the onset wasn't to make money, and continued investment of time and money into OSS should be weighed against the original intention. We are elated when we find others using open source SheetJS libraries and code in their profitable business applications. Others may regret and wish they didn't open source, but you don't know how things would have played out if you didn't open source. The yardstick we apply to our open source contributions is whether we're advancing the state of the art, since that's why we entered the space in the first place. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14886481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14886481 is a similar comment that probably better reflects the opinion expressed here. (note: we ended up developing paid offerings after conversations with @patio11 and others. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/01/28/design-and-implementation-of-csvexcel-upload-for-saas/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/01/28/design-and-implementati... discusses these points)
Karrot_Kream 8y ago
What's wrong with a LibrePay or Patreon for your OSS project?
- megous 8y ago
  It's another work on top if you want to make it work, perhaps? It's not like you'll register and the money will start flowing in.
  - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
    Sure, but if you want to make money from your work, it's a bit of a requirement. Gargon, the author of Mastodon, is making good money from his work on Mastodon. I'll bet folks would make money off Redis if they build a LibrePay or Patreon for it too. Now if you're a random small OSS author trying to become an OSS rockstar, then nobody would contribute.
    - megous 8y ago
      Well, the question was what's wrong with these platforms with regards to OSS. You can't just provide software that 1000s of people use. You now have to be creating some story around it on Patreon or whatever, have a way to get people to patreon or your website in the first place, which will only take away time from your side project. Numbers just don't add up. You can perhaps expect $50/month with those number of users if you really, really tried and spent countless hours on propagation. That's like 1-2 hours of work in a real job. For a cli tool distributed in major linux distros you don't even have a way to get people to your website, because mostly just packagers will go there and some people with exotic preferences who build from source, which is a tiny minority. These websites solve none of this.
- voltagex_ 8y ago
  LibrePay had some issues with a payment provider that almost killed it. Patreon is owned by the VCs and will eventually make changes that negatively impact creators.
- lkbm 8y ago
jasonlotito 8y ago
> People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project. It's very competitive. You're competing not just with other open source projects but also with SaaS solutions from well-funded companies; and you have to compete with a $0 marketing budget. So? What makes your "popular open source project" worth my time? Too many people are using open source as a way to try to turn it into a business, and have a problem turning it into a business. Being an open source project doesn't mean you deserve special treatment. I think the problem is the mentality you present in your first question: "People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project." I imagine it's very hard to create a popular open source project, when in reality, all the popular open source projects I know of started out by being useful open source projects that just happened to catch on.

Benjammer 8y ago

>after a decade of working for free during nights and weekends Think I spotted the problem. This whole thing feels like someone martyring themselves for a cause and being recognized as a hero, but then complaining that martyrs are heroes and we should be _supporting_ our heroes and not forcing them to be martyrs. But that was the whole point to begin with and why there was any opportunity for recognition at all. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

m3mpp 8y ago
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not that simple, what would be this industry without Linux, without the FSF, without the BSD network stack (that is in all the macs...) The growth of our industry, and probably of a good chunk of the whole economy for the last 10 years has a lot to do with those people working during nights and week-ends imo.
- monochromatic 8y ago
  And? People are welcome not to write OSS if it’s a burden.
  - m3mpp 8y ago
    For sure, but if they benefit from it and don't give anything back, money or time, they're just freeloaders, as simple as that. EDIT: people or corporations, same thing.
    - taneq 8y ago
      So is the software being given away or are there strings attached?
  - zapita 8y ago
    No they’re not, because it’s increasingly expected of developers to have a track record of open-source contributions if they want to move up into the higher tiers of their profession. That amplifies inequalities in the field between: 1) the top 1% employees in the field who have the luxury to invest unpaid time, and the social clout to make their projects more successful, or to join more successful projects. (example: how much more likely are you to be a key contributor to Kubernetes if you are, or were at some point, employed by Google?); 2) the other 99% who cannot afford to invest the spare time, and do not benefit from the social proximity to successful open-source contributors (and success in open-source is as much about social proximity today than technical skills, hopefully we can change that in the future); 3) The corporations who benefit financially from open-source, sometimes enormously, with very little pressure to contribute back because of the aforementioned social pressure on individuals to contribute on their free time. The expectations are so low that even modest corporate contributions (joining or starting a foundation, hiring a few engineers, paying for a conference) will be hailed as generous and benevolent, because the bar is so incredibly low.
    - hnaccy 8y ago
      >it’s increasingly expected of developers to have a track record of open-source contributions if they want to move up into the higher tiers of their profession. Is it really? Of the people I know who have had excellent career paths in software/computing none have a track record of open source contributions.
oceanghost 8y ago
In "Bullshit Jobs: A Theory" the author has a really interesting theory of how open source and employment in software interact. His model was, that programmers are expected to donate their time to OSS creating core components, in order to get jobs integrating those core components into commercial systems. When you think about the issue like that, it makes a lot of sense, but its a terrible deal for the programmer.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  A part of me thinks open source is this epic joke and conspiracy played on programmers. Some cabal of business owners somehow managed to convince us that it's admirable and ideal if we build all this software infrastructure for free so they could profit off of it. And that's pretty much what is happening and things like OpenSSL show how terrible it is.
  - oceanghost 8y ago
    You're not really wrong, there is an epic conspiracy. Ours is the only profession I can think of that's expected to work slave hours for no additional compensation. At least when a lawyer works 80 hour weeks, he might make partner someday. Nobody else does their job on weekends for free.
    - jplayer01 8y ago
      Exactly. We'd all be better off if more people worked for free working as medics, nurses and doctors, saving lives, but nobody seriously expects them to do any of that work with zero compensation. But somehow it's okay for programmers to build the tech the entire world depends on and get nothing in return, and programmers defend it! In a Star Trek utopia, that idealism would be great, but we live in a world where people are exploited wherever possible to ensure endless profit.
jfabre 8y ago
I think the main reason people do OSS is because they can work on a project they chose and that it's an interesting technical challenge for them. Giving the work for free and being recognized for it is what they're also after, but I don't think anyone would refuse to get paid doing the same thing.
jondubois 8y ago
After you work really hard for a very long time, physiologically, your brain expects some kind of reward. Then you remember that there was never any reward and you wonder why you did this to yourself. Lol.
plurgid 8y ago
Right all this talk of "what it takes to be a success in OSS" ... programma please! "Success" in the OSS world is putting code out that others can use. Either they find it useful, or they don't. If they don't that's not failure. That's ... someone else put out something better, or that your user community is small or just not out there. OSS is not a business model. It's a SHARING model. God it's just like the music scene these days. Did you get into it for the Art? Cool you're gonna be ok. Did you get into it wanting to be a rock star? Might as well buy a lottery ticket. Your chances are better. OSS success is providing something of use to a community that contributes back to it. Yeah, maybe you can find a way to make a nickel off that, but that's not what it's FOR. It's not a marketplace, it's a public library. This celebrity/glamor seeking is so apparent on github. Every single project's readme.md reads like marketing copy these days. Just like the music scene again. Reminds me of the 90's when the record labels still had money and steamrolled the alternative scene looking for a cash grab.
- staticassertion 8y ago
  What if I want to open source my code so that people can use it, but also I want to make money from it? Why is that nothing something we should reconcile? Why is that not "sharing"?
  - ricardobeat 8y ago
    Then find a way to make money of it? These are not exclusive.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Making software open source doesn't mean you can't make money from it. Depending on the details of what you build, who uses it, how you license it, etc., it may be harder to make money from it than if you made it proprietary. But that certainly isn't something you can just take as a given. You also can't take it as a given that the project would make money if it was closed source either. Maybe you made something nobody needs. Or they need it, but there are better alternatives out there (possibly some that are Open Source). Who's to say? Somebody yesterday (maybe DannyBee, not sure) made a very insightful comment in saying that sometimes the value created by Open Source software is created exactly because it's Open Source. Anyway, you can always charge for software even if the code is Open Source. You can stick it on the web and make it a SaaS app, or you can make the source available but charge to download binaries (ala JBoss back in the day), or you can make source and binaries freely available and sell subscriptions, etc. Aaah, wait, I know, you're asking "who would buy a subscription for something that's free to download?" Companies. Companies will, for things that are mission critical, because they typically need for their to be a contractual relationship (eg, somebody to sue) in place. Or you have a manager who needs to spend her budget or lose it, and she understands that you need to make a profit in order to stay alive and keep enhancing the software. Etc., etc, yadda, yadda, ad infinitum. My point is, it's not as simple as "Oh, I made this Open Source, so there's no way to profit from it".

mhd 8y ago

> People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project. It's very competitive. In the web space maybe. The desktop and CLI sector are much more relaxed.

jaredklewis 8y ago

I think everything you said is also true of musicians, artists, actors, writers, athletes, game developers, youtubers, and twitch streamers, just to name a few. The problem for all of these categories is that lots of people want to do the job. There is basically an unlimited supply of people that like to write novels, make programming languages, play soccer, or make video games. That makes it a buyers market. "What? This iPhone game is $0.99? No way. I'll play one of the million free iPhone games instead." For every singer, basketball player, or instagram personality that hits the big time, there are thousands that never made a dollar doing it. For better or worse, authoring an open source library is one of those things that there is no shortage of people willing to do, so I am not optimistic about use of "business innovations" to solve this problem. If those innovations are in any way non-consumer friendly, consumers are just going to choose a different open source tool/project.

spullara 8y ago
In none of the cases you mention is the author's work used to make millions of dollars with nothing going to the artist. This comparison is nonsense.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  Sure, I agree that consumers use video games, for example, for personal enjoyment, whereas cloud providers use OSS to make millions. But that difference does not change the market dynamics in any way. In both cases, the effects of a near unlimited supply of creators is having the same effect, regardless of how their creations get used. Perhaps the difference changes the ethics of the situation, I don't know, but I remain equally skeptical of "business innovations" being able to help the OSS creators as I am "business innovations" being able to help aspiring rock stars and shortstops.
  - x0x0 8y ago
    Except games either (1) are pay-per-purchase, or (2) are free-to-play and subsidized by whales. In both cases, high usage games tend to make enough to justify the economics of continued support and development. That's almost exactly the opposite of very popular OSS software, which generates an endless wave of free users. And generally no whales. And high demands for bug fixes. And serious temper tantrums (this has happened to me too) when you explain to users of your free software that you owe them exactly fuck. and. all. and won't be hopping-to in order to fix something for them.

sheetjs 8y ago

There's nothing wrong with open source as long as you are honest to yourself regarding the intentions. If you go into open source expecting to get paid, then you're gonna have a bad time. If you go into open source for the accolades, then you're gonna have a bad time. If you go into open source with a true desire to improve the state of the art, then you might be able to succeed. We (https://sheetjs.com https://sheetjs.com, our most popular library https://github.com/SheetJS/js-xlsx https://github.com/SheetJS/js-xlsx has over 11K GitHub stars) combat that by intentionally removing our names and egos from the equation. We are happy to see others use our open source code in their applications, and are constantly surprised when high-profile projects like React end up using our code (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v16.0.0/src/renderers/shared/utils/adler32.js#L17 https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v16.0.0/src/renderers...). Our intentions are clear: the open source offerings give us a test surface far larger than any proprietary solution, and for that we are extremely satisfied with the results.

raquo 8y ago
If you want to tell everyone else that they should be in OSS just for advancing the state of the art, you might want to reconcile that with SheetJS earning money from non-OSS extensions and consulting services, because that discrepancy certainly doesn't look very honest of you.
- sheetjs 8y ago
  Your interpretation is far from the original point "There's nothing wrong with open source as long as you are honest to yourself regarding the intentions." If you're entering OSS to make money, it's incumbent upon you to find a business model. Many open source developers start with intentions like "advancing the state of the art" and over time become disappointed because others build businesses and profit off of their creations. The intention at the onset wasn't to make money, and continued investment of time and money into OSS should be weighed against the original intention. We are elated when we find others using open source SheetJS libraries and code in their profitable business applications. Others may regret and wish they didn't open source, but you don't know how things would have played out if you didn't open source. The yardstick we apply to our open source contributions is whether we're advancing the state of the art, since that's why we entered the space in the first place. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14886481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14886481 is a similar comment that probably better reflects the opinion expressed here. (note: we ended up developing paid offerings after conversations with @patio11 and others. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/01/28/design-and-implementation-of-csvexcel-upload-for-saas/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/01/28/design-and-implementati... discusses these points)

Karrot_Kream 8y ago

What's wrong with a LibrePay or Patreon for your OSS project?

megous 8y ago
It's another work on top if you want to make it work, perhaps? It's not like you'll register and the money will start flowing in.
- Karrot_Kream 8y ago
  Sure, but if you want to make money from your work, it's a bit of a requirement. Gargon, the author of Mastodon, is making good money from his work on Mastodon. I'll bet folks would make money off Redis if they build a LibrePay or Patreon for it too. Now if you're a random small OSS author trying to become an OSS rockstar, then nobody would contribute.
  - megous 8y ago
    Well, the question was what's wrong with these platforms with regards to OSS. You can't just provide software that 1000s of people use. You now have to be creating some story around it on Patreon or whatever, have a way to get people to patreon or your website in the first place, which will only take away time from your side project. Numbers just don't add up. You can perhaps expect $50/month with those number of users if you really, really tried and spent countless hours on propagation. That's like 1-2 hours of work in a real job. For a cli tool distributed in major linux distros you don't even have a way to get people to your website, because mostly just packagers will go there and some people with exotic preferences who build from source, which is a tiny minority. These websites solve none of this.
voltagex_ 8y ago
LibrePay had some issues with a payment provider that almost killed it. Patreon is owned by the VCs and will eventually make changes that negatively impact creators.
lkbm 8y ago

jasonlotito 8y ago

> People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project. It's very competitive. You're competing not just with other open source projects but also with SaaS solutions from well-funded companies; and you have to compete with a $0 marketing budget. So? What makes your "popular open source project" worth my time? Too many people are using open source as a way to try to turn it into a business, and have a problem turning it into a business. Being an open source project doesn't mean you deserve special treatment. I think the problem is the mentality you present in your first question: "People underestimate how difficult it is to create a popular open source project." I imagine it's very hard to create a popular open source project, when in reality, all the popular open source projects I know of started out by being useful open source projects that just happened to catch on.