5 ms·

> 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 (tha

by 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.

by m3mpp 8y ago

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.