6 ms·

>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 cau

>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.
      - zapita 8y ago
        > Of the people I know who have had excellent career paths in software/computing none have a track record of open source contributions. Right, that’s how they built their career in the past. All things being equal, it will become gradually harder to build a career that way in the future. I already know several major employers who look at a candidate’s github activity as a factor in the standard hiring process. And that trend is only accelerating.
        jnurmine 8y ago
        If employers score higher the candidates with a high Github activity, then eventually the employers get workers who continue to spend a lot of their time in Github. If these people spend a lot of their free time, and perhaps even some of their professional time, in Github contributing to various public projects, then they might not necessarily have 100% focus on the employer's tasks. I am not sure if this is what the employers expect or even want to happen. The intention is probably to use Github activity as a pre-screening proxy metric for technical capability and skillset. But... why would someone who is contributing a lot to public projects cease to do so, once employed? Is there a risk of getting a partially distracted, though skilled person? If the wish from the company then is to ensure they get the most performance for themselves, the logical step would be to cut down on the public contributions via e.g. legal and contractual means. So... why would someone who enjoys contributing to public projects join a company that selects based on Github activity, if it is in the company's interests that further contributions should be reduced? Ahh... Maybe I am just overanalyzing it.
- wvenable 8y ago
  Those developers either did it for the passion, which was it's own reward. Or, much more often, they actually got paid to do it. Doing it for free and then expecting a payoff later is very different.
- Benjammer 8y ago
  Just because the motivations and reward mechanisms here aren't adequate in your eyes in terms of fairness doesn't mean that this system is somehow "out of equilibrium" or whatever and is headed in a bad direction.
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".

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.
    - zapita 8y ago
      > Of the people I know who have had excellent career paths in software/computing none have a track record of open source contributions. Right, that’s how they built their career in the past. All things being equal, it will become gradually harder to build a career that way in the future. I already know several major employers who look at a candidate’s github activity as a factor in the standard hiring process. And that trend is only accelerating.
      - jnurmine 8y ago
        If employers score higher the candidates with a high Github activity, then eventually the employers get workers who continue to spend a lot of their time in Github. If these people spend a lot of their free time, and perhaps even some of their professional time, in Github contributing to various public projects, then they might not necessarily have 100% focus on the employer's tasks. I am not sure if this is what the employers expect or even want to happen. The intention is probably to use Github activity as a pre-screening proxy metric for technical capability and skillset. But... why would someone who is contributing a lot to public projects cease to do so, once employed? Is there a risk of getting a partially distracted, though skilled person? If the wish from the company then is to ensure they get the most performance for themselves, the logical step would be to cut down on the public contributions via e.g. legal and contractual means. So... why would someone who enjoys contributing to public projects join a company that selects based on Github activity, if it is in the company's interests that further contributions should be reduced? Ahh... Maybe I am just overanalyzing it.
wvenable 8y ago
Those developers either did it for the passion, which was it's own reward. Or, much more often, they actually got paid to do it. Doing it for free and then expecting a payoff later is very different.
Benjammer 8y ago
Just because the motivations and reward mechanisms here aren't adequate in your eyes in terms of fairness doesn't mean that this system is somehow "out of equilibrium" or whatever and is headed in a bad direction.

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".